Tuesday, October 29, 2013

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.


  1. It isn't a scientific misunderstanding. It's a political animal wrapping itself in an agenda of 'science' manufactured to order ; or if not, it is claimed to be so. http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UN_GlobalTax.htm

  2. Good Morning, opit,

    I think I said that, so we agree. But I am a scientist, and so must tell you, the (insane, in my view) political animal is enabled by, not just a scientific misunderstanding, but a general scientific incompetence, in fact a failing scientific paradigm, particularly in the earth and life sciences. The "greenhouse effect" was introduced, more than a century ago, as a possible explanation for the "ice ages" supposed to have occurred, regularly, over millions of years, prior to about 10,000 BC; since 10,000 BC--for all of known human history--the global temperature has been remarkably stable. I know, as no one else yet does, that the Earth's surface was subjected to a wholesale re-formation of the landmasses, between roughly 20,000 and 10,000 years ago (and not "continental drift" over millions of years, as science now believes). That new knowledge is what this blog is all about. So I know the "ice ages" theory is quite wrong, as is its tail-end, the "greenhouse effect" of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. I disproved the "greenhouse effect"--with the simple, definitive evidence of my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, and note, entirely independently of my much larger research into the deliberate re-formation of the Earth. Competent atmospheric and climate scientists, if there had been any, should have done that comparison 20 years ago, and dropped the "greenhouse effect", and runaway global warming OR cooling (the greenhoue effect's original "ice ages" motivation), from science then. And any competent physical scientist today, upon seeing my Venus/Earth comparison, should have quickly realized science's mistake and accepted my finding as definitive evidence against the consensus theory. Instead, it is too great an embarrassment for even most "skeptics" or critics of the consensus to accept and promote. That is a general scientific incompetence, and the future will judge this time harshly for it. This and past generations have chosen to avoid facing contrary facts to their theories--their failing theories--and they are only making it ever more certain that the revolution, when it finally and fully arrives, will be violent. (That is, in fact, obviously where we already are, with the Insane Left. Current societal disruptions are just prologue, "canaries in the coal mine" as they say. Mankind faces a tangled mass of historical and political divisions, exacerbated now by a tangled mass of fundamentally incorrect scientific beliefs.)

  3. opit,

    I received your latest comment here, but I prefer to let my original post stand on its own, as my general take on what is going on, rather than opening up this blog to others' debating points, political statements, and theories or speculations. I am not here to debate--nor to provide yet another unfocused debate forum for others--but to inform of new knowledge.