There Is Still No Global Warming Greenhouse Effect

Steven Goddard is insisting that there is a "greenhouse effect" due to IR absorption by "greenhouse gases"; he claims they impede heat energy flow from the Earth's surface upward, like a dam across a river impedes the river's flow. My response:

From the Earth's surface to the tropopause, the energy flow is governed solely by the lapse rate in temperature, which is due solely to the gravitational acceleration g and the effective specific heat of the atmosphere--completely independent of just how the atmosphere is warmed, as for example by absorption and emission of IR radiation by IR-active ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere. "Greenhouse gases" don't impede the energy flow upward, as--again--my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison proved (simply: it precisely--precisely--confirmed the Standard Atmosphere, which is based upon the temperature lapse rate as the governing physical condition of the atmosphere--and this, despite local and transient, as well as latitudinal, variations of the real troposphere from its precise definition in the Standard Atmosphere). Your argument is based upon a false premise, and is therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent.

Climate Science and The Darkness of Dogmatic Thought

Steven Goddard has a post today on "the definitive data on the global warming/climate change scam", with his first graph showing the high correlation between the official adjustments to US temperatures (not the temperatures themselves, but the adjustments made to them) and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, I first pointed out that definitive evidence, and called it definitive, exactly 2 years ago, in the post "US Temperatures Have Been Fraudulently Adjusted According to the Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere". The rest of Goddard's post is superfluous, and weakens appreciation of the fact that those fraudulent adjustments are by themselves the definitive evidence (in indicting a field of science, you can't top the revelation of deliberate fraud).

In the wider context of the general incompetence now running rampant, not just in science but throughout every public debate, and in virtually every confrontation in the world, the question that needs to be asked is, why did it take Goddard two years to acknowledge (and even now, without crediting me) what I specifically suggested and then demonstrated to him and the world 2 years ago, and repeatedly reminded him and his readers ever since?

And why have both climate alarmists and "lukewarmers" studiously ignored--for 4 years now-- my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which is not only the definitive evidence against the very existence of the global-warming "greenhouse effect" due to so-called "greenhouse gases", but the definitive evidence for the wholesale rethinking and correction of climate science?

Everyone has their own reasons for their behavior, but the fundamental answer is that mankind, both individually and en masse, cannot stand the full light of truth now, in one area of concern or another. And so they think that, by ignoring the light that seems too harsh, they can defeat it, can keep others from seeing it. But by warring on the truth--in favor of their favorite dogma--they are unwittingly asking for real war among men.

CO2-Correlated Global Warming Only Occurred 1976 - 1989/90

As a non-climate scientist (a general physicist), I try to show only the most obvious examples of incompetence and/or fraud in the consensus climate science underlying the "global warming" scare stories touted by all of our trusted, supposedly authoritative institutions. I disproved the "greenhouse effect" with a simple Venus/Earth temperatures comparison; I showed that US temperatures have been falsely adjusted according to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which fraudulently FORCES the dependence of those temperatures upon carbon dioxide). I also long ago realized that the alarmist "climate science consensus" was based on just a relatively short period when the global mean temperature and the atmospheric carbon dioxide level both increased together, and I have pointed this out repeatedly for more than 4 years. This short-period cherry-picking (and worse) of the temperature data, on the part of politically and ideologically motivated climate scientists, going back to 1989/90, has come up once again on Bob Tisdale's blog, where I submitted the following comment:

I have pointed this out repeatedly (admittedly only on the few blogs I visit at all regularly), since the spring of 2010, just a few months after I first became aware of the global warming debate (around October 2009). I thought, for most of that time, that their cherry-picked period was 1976-2000, until this last September, at Steven Goddard’s blog, when it became clear (to me) that the actual core of the alarmists’ belief is based only upon 1976-1989/90:

My comment at Real Science Sept. 17, 2013

(See the graph at the link I provided within that comment, from USAToday in 2010. I called it fraudulent science as soon as I saw it presented to the public there.)

And I added:

…and the best (and earliest) paper I saw (in the spring of 2010) showing the clear (detailed) cause-effect relationship between ENSO events [i.e., natural variability in the climate system, not the "greenhouse" or any human-caused effect] and the global mean temperature was Prof. Horst Malberg’s March 2009 article, in German, “La Niña – El Niño und der solare Einfluss: Die Klimaentwicklung 1950 – 2008″ (“La Niña – El Niño and the Solar Influence: The Climate Trend 1950 – 2008″).

Saving The Appearances Goes On Without Pause

Roy Spencer has a recent post suggesting a way that "deep ocean warming can bypass the surface" (for those trying to explain the "pause" in global mean surface temperature, without admitting their basic theory has been proven wrong by that "pause"). My response:

The 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 precisely explained by the different solar distances of the two planets and nothing else. This proves there is no increase of temperature with increasing CO2, since Venus has 96.5% CO2 to Earth's .04%. And the comparison was done using temperature and pressure profiles obtained for Venus on one day (October 5, 1991, a long time ago now), compared with the same profiles as defined in the Earth Standard Atmosphere--so the comparison confirms the validity of the Standard Atmosphere as the real equilibrium state of Earth's troposphere, and as such, independent of any supposed changes in ocean heat content. And finally, since Venus and Earth differ so fundamentally in albedo, cloud cover, and planetary surface, the fact that their atmospheric temperature ratio is just precisely that expected from their different solar distances alone, tells any good physicist immediately (I realized it while writing my original posting, in November 2010, from one sentence to the next) that the troposphere is warmed, on the global scale, entirely by direct absorption of incident solar radiation (or radiation higher in the atmosphere), and not at all from the surface as today's academics universally believe and promulgate--so changes in the ocean heat content are irrelevant to the global mean surface temperature (just as it makes no difference that Venus's surface is all solid crust, while Earth's is 71% ocean). Climate scientists are, in my view, obviously chasing local and transient (and near-surface) effects--also called weather--and not global ones. All of this should have been learned and accepted years ago (as far back as 1979, when the first Venus data was obtained, which agreed with the 1991 data I used in my comparison). Empty speculation (such as that done by believers in the greenhouse effect) in order to "save the appearances" has a long history, and it is never good. The sooner the wider scientific community confronts and accepts the Venus/Earth comparison and the confirmation of an utterly stable, overarching equilibrium as the predominant reality in our atmosphere, the better for all of science (for every other earth and life science is also in need of fundamental rethinking, I assure you).

Dogma Is the Deeper Problem Today

Steven Goddard has a post on "1950 scientific consensus", which included the belief that "continents don't move". My response:

The continents were moved by design, at least into their present shapes and distribution. The design is so exact (the probability is one in a million million that they were placed by chance), and the supposed continental movements today so small, that it would take several hundred thousand years for them to move away from the designed placement (and that placement is but one small aspect of the design, which encompasses both the terrestrial and celestial spheres, and the entire solar system). And it has been only about 10 to 20 thousand years since the design was made, upon which all of the ever-popular "ancient mysteries" of man were afterwards based.

But today, almost everyone is bent on expressing their disdain for ideas that don't fit the dogmas they have come to embrace (religiously)--confrontation, or knee-jerk condescension and dismissal, rather than professional consideration--and those who explicitly want to consider other ideas (like "tallbloke's talkshop" or, in the wider arena, self-righteous, dangerous fools like Barack Obama) are indiscriminate in their considerations, and no more open than anyone else to the definitive truth, when it is presented to them (and no, I'm not perfect either, I'm just the discoverer of definitive new knowledge, of that great design of the "gods" who once were known and, unsurprisingly, worshipped, worldwide). There is a crisis of general scientific incompetence because of this long-nurtured embrace of dogma (of current, public, politically correct consensus) over dispassionate, strict reason, with a general inability to identify and focus upon definitive evidence that does not fit entirely, or even well, with anyone's prejudices (among those who broadcast their views, especially--they being particularly certain they know the truth).

There is no solid foundation to any of the earth and life sciences today. The central theories in both--plate tectonics and undirected evolution--are simply, inescapably disproved by the design I have found and verified, many times over. They are poorly engineered--out of ever-hopeful but incompetent speculation--and do not work, as you engineers would say.

Are There Any Competent Climate Scientists?

Steven Goddard has a post claiming "Some climate scientists are actually competent". My response:

There have been two basic camps in climate academe, those who spout "greenhouse effect" and "runaway global warming" with alarm, and those who beat the drum for "ENSO" (or "multidecadal ocean oscillations") and a cyclical variation in global temperature, on top of a widely-believed global warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age (c. 1680) of 0.5 °C/century (but, like Phil Jourdan above, I doubt their global temperature records either way, since I found the utterly stable Standard Atmosphere model for Earth's troposphere agrees precisely with the same pressure regime in Venus's atmosphere--when the latter's temperatures are corrected for its closer distance from the Sun--despite Venus having 2400 times the concentration of CO2, more than twice the albedo, a miles-thick planetary cloud cover and an entirely solid planetary surface, all hugely different from Earth but having no effect on the temperatures). To the academic theorists of the latter (ENSO) persuasion, the time period from about 2000 to 2030 is expected to show a slight temperature decline, like the periods 1940 to 1970 (or '75) and 1880 to 1910. I say it should amaze both sides that the Standard Atmosphere model, known for over a century, agrees so precisely with Venus's atmospheric temperature profile for ONE DAY (October 5, 1991), which literally screams out "stable equilibrium" for both planets, to any competent physicist (and a reader of my blog informed me, a few months ago, of Venus data from 1979 that also agrees with the Earth's Standard Atmosphere). But even the most recalcitrant global warming skeptics--aside from me--believe implicitly in today's non-climate earth science theories, and so think that a mere 5 degree decrease in global mean surface temperature must bring on a global ice age (that would take it down from the present 59°F mean temperature, to 50°F, and I say that it is the height of hysteria to think 50°F is consistent with a global ice age). So I say, there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists. None. Zero. Period. As in, they all need to let go of their current theories, across all the earth sciences, if they want to become competent in my book. Of course, I have an entirely different, dogma-free perspective on the Earth, since I found, in my own research, that its surface was reformed wholesale, less than 20,000 years ago, and to a great design whose features gave rise to all the so-called "ancient mysteries" of man, worldwide (so there was no "continental drift" over millions of years, but deliberate breakup, transport, and reassembly of landmasses to their current shapes and locations). And the present generation would rather war with one another, than realize that scientists, and mankind generally, have painted themselves into a corner with a failed paradigm that specifically denies the possibility of deliberate design of the Earth.

On The Dogmatic Jihad of Radiative Transfer Theory Believers

Steven Goddard has a post "categorizing idiot clans" and listing them, to which one commenter added, "I see a missing category, the geran category: Populated by mean, vicious little SOBs (a technical term, I assure you) who limit their knowledge of thermal energy transfer to simple concepts of gaseous convection and the ideal gas law and nothing whatsoever involving radiative energy transfer …". My response follows:

That's probably because the only globally effective (i.e., not localized and transient) radiative energy transfer is from direct solar to atmosphere and to ground (yes, the two separately warmed directly by the Sun, basically) and none from ground to atmosphere (although there is radiative energy transfer from the ground THROUGH the atmosphere, to space), as the comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Earth and Venus makes clear (for those with eyes to see--and such are few in this time of general obedience to patently incompetent consensus theories). "Skeptics" who believe in the consensus radiation transfer theory as applied in climate science--which assumes a huge loop of radiative energy between atmosphere and ground, greater than the mean incident solar radiation of 342 W/m^2, and due solely to assuming the ground radiates 390 W/m^2, as much as a blackbody, in a vacuum,at the same temperature as the ground--are unwitting fellow travellers of the "idiots" being considered by Steven Goddard in his post. The lesson of Venus/Earth, in the present context, is that thermal energy transfer--which is the real problem in climate science--encompasses radiative transfer, but radiative transfer--which is the false consensus theory--does not encompass thermal energy transfer (it takes also conductive--don't dismiss that, skeptics--and convective transfer to do that).

Modelling a Negative, Or the Easy Proliferation of Hypotheses in Science Today

Jo Nova has a series of posts on the apparent discovery of a "notch filter" mechanism in the Earth's climate system, that doesn't do anything positive, but only negates, quite improbably, an "expected" dependence of the global mean surface temperature on the total solar irradiation (TSI). I submitted the following:

It is just too pat (i.e., characterized by a highly improbable "coincidence"): You find the temperature doesn't follow the 11-year solar cycle of TSI; now you find that something (apparently, the Sun's magnetic field) is cancelling that "expected" following--with an improbable, 11-year delay, just the same period as the solar cycle--so there is no 11-year cycle in the (global mean surface) temperature (GMST). Considered logically, without regard for any existing theories or common assumptions, by far the simplest, and therefore most probable reason for this "dog that doesn't bark" is that the expectation of a GMST dependence upon TSI is wrong (the dog doesn't bark because there is no dog, or nothing for the dog to bark at, after all).

Everybody wants to ignore the definitive Venus/Earth temperatures comparison I performed in late 2010, and what it indicates for the correction of climate science. Above all, in the present context, it indicates that the troposphere is fundamentally warmed--globally(!)--to the Standard Atmosphere profile (which represents the real, equilibrium vertical profile of the atmosphere, as the Venus/Earth comparison quantitatively and precisely demonstrates), by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not by heat from the separately warmed surface. But of course that does not mean the TSI, which includes the major portion that warms the surface; it means just that incident portion (obviously in the infrared) which is directly absorbed by the troposphere! Climate and other atmospheric scientists need to identify that portion; I expect it will be found that it simply does not vary according to the 11-year solar cycle.

Degeneracy Today, or The Coercion of Dogma Versus the Coercion of a Design

Steven Goddard has a post on "A Dark Age of Degeneracy", speaking about the state of the Democratic party in the U.S. now. This is no news to me, as I have been referring to them as "The Insane Left" for most of Obama's presidency, certainly since the passage of "Obamacare" in early 2010. But the degeneracy is not limited to politics, nor to recent years. My response to Goddard's post follows:

If you "believe" in undirected (Darwinian) evolution (evolution by "natural selection" of random mutations--the "greenhouse effect" of biological science--which is the consensus theory and the underlying paradigm for all the physical sciences today, particularly the earth and life sciences), you are upholding the major basis for the degeneracy, and you are part of the problem. Just as Obama is the revenge for Bush Jr. (ever hear of the saying, "out of the frying pan, into the fire"?), evolution was accepted into science, and increasingly defended to this day, as revenge for the coercive dogmas of religion (or the very idea of "God", widely misunderstood throughout history as coercive, when it is merely the design of the world which is coercive, just as the design of a car, or anything made by man, is coercive of the things you can do with it). Science went wrong when it thought it could oust the old religious superstitions and magical beliefs with Darwin's amateurish but detailedly argued theory, which simply ignored the logical implications of the designs (often amazingly obvious) he saw in the natural world--and scientists have been on an ever-increasing romp down the slippery slope of unfettered, incompetent imagination ever since, only claiming whenever the need arises that, "anything can happen, given enough time" (such as a runaway global climate, in the present go-round). The future will look back on this and the last 155 years (since Darwin's "Origin of Species") with shame (and it will be abject shame, indeed, before it is through, if we are led to World War for a third time, or if the U.S.A. becomes just another state overly coercive of its citizens, because as I, and so many others, have warned over and over, we, and especially the "leaders", have not learned from our past mistakes--we, taken altogether, are not "evolving", which in reality only means ever more learning, without forgetting--without degenerating).

There Is No Valid Climate Science and No Competent Climate Debate

The WUWT site has a post on alarmist "pseudoscientists' claims debunked", containing a statement that I find absolutely incompetent, and to which I respond here:

"Let us be as precise as They are vague. The existence of the greenhouse effect is definitively established both in theory and in experiment and needs no 'consensus' to prop it up."

You call that precise? The "greenhouse effect" touted to the world's citizens is this, and this alone: The global mean atmospheric temperature at the Earth's surface (or at any given pressure level) supposedly increases with an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. I have presented the definitive evidence against this "greenhouse effect", 3 and 1/2 years ago, now--so stop trying to "prop it up" with the claim that carbon dioxide gas absorbs infrared radiation (at wavelengths in the range emitted by the Earth's surface)--no one denies that--and then calmly but irrationally claiming that there must then be SOME global warming with increasing carbon dioxide, despite the definitive fact (which you all have kept yourselves determinedly blind to) that the Venus/Earth comparison shows there is NO SUCH WARMING WITH INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE, ALL THE WAY FROM 0.04% (Earth) to 96.5% (Venus). Unless and until greenhouse effect believers can show, using the consensus theory, that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio MUST BE--coincidentally--just what I showed it to be, and yet just what it must be if only the distance from the Sun matters in the comparison of these two planetary atmospheres (at points of equal pressure, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures), you are all being, not merely imprecise, but incompetent in ignoring the results of comparing those two real, detailed planetary atmospheres--the largest and most definitive experimental result in all of climate and atmospheric science. You can't just say it's a "coincidence", you have to show how the consensus theory predicts precisely that temperature ratio, while taking account of all the supposed effects that consensus theory says must affect the temperature (including the great differences in albedo and cloud cover, mass of the planetary atmosphere, and state of the planetary surface)--YOU HAVE TO SHOW HOW CONSENSUS THEORY PREDICTS THE OBSERVED FACT, THAT ALL THOSE OTHER SUPPOSED EFFECTS ADD UP TO PRECISELY(!) ZERO, FOR VENUS AND EARTH, AND ONLY THE DIFFERENCE IN DISTANCE FROM THE SUN MATTERS IN THE FINAL, DEFINITIVE RESULT. UNTIL YOU DO, YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR CLAIMING "THERE IS A GREENHOUSE EFFECT" at all. Until you do, there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists, whether alarmist or lukewarm believers in the consensus "greenhouse effect".

The Growing Religious Self-Righteousness of Science

Steven Goddard has a post, "My 35th Year as a Global Warming True Believer". My response is the following:

"Global warming" hype is just the latest step in a creeping degeneracy of science--particularly in the earth and life sciences--that has been going on since long before I was born. As a physicist, I am astounded by the poor quality of introductory university physics texts being written today, and can only hope undergraduates are encouraged to study earlier, classic texts, from the first half of the 20th century. In fact, I consider it imperative not to embrace any current theory, but to inform myself of the entire field, going as far back as needed to get to the origins of those theories, when everyone still KNEW they were just a certain set of assumptions and makeshift hypotheses.

I know, as no other scientist on Earth does, that the current scientific paradigm, of uniformitarian, undirected "evolution" of all that we observe on Earth, is wrong, and has failed. I watched--and offered my two cents, over and over, in letters to the editor--as the steamroller of Darwinian evolution (theory, NOT fact) has put down all honest criticisms, over my adult lifespan (and of course, long before). More than 30 years ago, I had already concluded that the main failing of today's scientists was their inability to handle basic probabilities, and thus to govern their imaginations, and especially to rigorously match the strength--not to mention the kind--of their proposed causes to the strength--and kind--of the observable effects (0.04% CO2 as the "control knob" of global mean temperature, for example--or, Steven, "salinity differences" driving the Gulf Stream).

"Climate science" today (and every other field of science tied to troubled and failing theory) is just a massive and absurd waste of my time, not to mention the aggregate time being devoted to it by everyone else in the world. That the science community and the world should be so deluded as to take it seriously, much less let it run amuck in the political world, is insane. I dismissed the "greenhouse gas" scientists 20 years ago, when I encountered them in passing at atmospheric science conferences, and I have only had my attention called to the "global warming" world agenda since late 2009, barely two months before the climategate e-mails broke. Within a year, I had identified the most basic errors in the consensus theory, learned of the actual governance of global mean temperature by the hydrostatic vertical temperature lapse rate, and definitively confirmed it and the stable Standard Atmosphere model that assumes and rigorously quantifies it, in my elementary but (amazingly, insanely) seminal Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (which should have been done by competent scientists over 20 years ago, or even as far back as 1979, when the earliest pertinent Venus data was obtained).

I had no reason to be really surprised by the foolishness of the global "global warming" hysteria, however. I've seen the hysteria build, and the dogma ever emotionally and unscientifically defended and reinforced, over my lifetime, in the evolution debates (which from the first to the last, outlawed the very idea of design in or of the natural world), the continuing introduction and too-quick acceptance of poorly-quantified and hypothesis-multiplying theories (like plate tectonics--separate from provable "continental drift" observations--and Milankovitch theory), and the public adulation heaped upon the glory-hounds in science, intent only upon trumpeting the current consensus, men like Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan (and most recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye). The vehement, dogmatic rejection of "Intelligent Design" in recent years was but a telling prelude, the previous step in the growing religious self-righteousness of science.

I know that I, and I alone as yet, hold open the door to the next scientific paradigm, and to a once-again truly competent modern theoretical science, with my discovery of the world-encompassing design of those who were remembered among ancient man as the "gods", that, ironically and not at all coincidentally, started all of the misbegotten, religiously-held dogma that besets mankind on Earth. The present difficulties are but the tip-most hair on the tail of the runaway dog of basic scientific misconceptions, diligently nurtured through most of the last two centuries.

Climate Alarmism: Just the Latest Big Lie (In a Long Line)

Steven Goddard has a post on the "Big Lie" of climate alarmism, and says: "Climate change politics is straight out of the worst annals of human history, back to the days of burning witches for cooking the weather. Who could have imagined this would happen in the 21st century?" I submitted the following response:

Yet there are clear antecedents--albeit totally within science, and no political coercion--going all the way back to the inauguration of the current scientific paradigm, of undirected evolution of all that we observe in the world today. The origin of today's climate science tyranny lies in the long years of dogmatic assertion of favored theories as unquestionable fact, with the ever increasing suppression of contrary facts; it is no surprise to me that the process of promulgating scientific dogma as fact finally has spilled over into political abuse, on a worldwide scale (it was science that first made its dogmas sacrosanct, worldwide--literally "throwing the baby out with the bath water" for the last 160 years, in order to demonize any idea connected with, or even falsely imagined to be connected with, religion or a belief in God).

And only my scientific research, into the true origin of all the "ancient mysteries", of ancient religious import, gets to the heart of the fundamental human problem, that has plagued mankind through all of known history. Mine is the greatest discovery in all of history, yet the world is so awash in unreasoning anger and fear, and science so abused as to be just another religion, that I literally have no scientific peers--really competent, and honest, scientists--to turn to (as I have found out over the last 11 years of seeking such).

Venus Again

I have submitted the following comment to the Steven Goddard site, where the subject of Venus's hot surface is erupting again:

Convection does NOT dominate in the global troposphere, the constant vertical temperature lapse rate (temperature gradient) does; that is the stage upon which weather (and climate) plays its part. Convection just drives the weather (primarily horizontally), it does not create or maintain the vertical lapse rate--the hydrostatic condition does that (and Jerry Gorline needs to understand that his derivation above is even more easily, and effectively, done as: mcΔT= -mgΔx, as provided by the hydrostatic condition). The stable lapse rate means heat rises naturally "down" the temperature gradient--convection would only destabilize such a precise structure, and so cannot dominate, rather that structure dominates, on the global scale (too many--incompetent "experts" and lay citizens alike--in the global warming debate continue to be confused by local and transient effects that have no global effect).

The critical piece of evidence remains (I brought it out in November 2010) that the Venus/Earth tropospheric temperatures comparison shows that essentially the only difference in temperatures in the two atmospheres, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is due to the difference in distance from the Sun--and that is a PRECISE quantitative fact above and below the Venus cloud layer (so clouds don't affect the global lapse rate structure either, nor does planetary albedo, at least for Venus and Earth, because that great difference between them also has no effect (obviously, unless you want to try to explain how these various effects DO matter, but add up to PRECISELY zero in the comparison of Venus and Earth). The only explanation for this is that both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident heat (infrared) energy from the Sun (so, for example, it doesn't matter that they have quite different reflections of VISIBLE light--albedos--or that little light reaches the Venus surface to heat it--atmospheric warming, to the ruling temperature lapse rate structure, has already occurred. So I concur with Jason Calley, that the astronomers are not experts--or really, all that competent--in their attempts to understand, and in their claims to fine new discoveries. (Nor do I claim to have all the answers myself. Nor am I as interested in the climate field as are most of those engaging in the unending "debate", which consists of vainly lobbing theoretical points past each others' unheeding heads, in an insane controlling political environment to boot.)

"Emergent Phenomena": Failed Thinking Infesting Science

I submitted the following comment to the wuwt site of Anthony Watts, where Willis Eschenbach reiterates his idea of climate as "emerging phenomena" (and which I understand as "magical self-creation"):

"Emergent phenomenon" is an argument from incompetent, third-rate thinkers like Richard Dawkins, determined to push Darwinian, or undirected, evolution upon students of science, despite its by now obvious failings; back in the 1980's, it was called "order out of chaos", elevated to the airy status of a "meme", and "chaos theory" was misapplied to support it (for the latter really only supports "order behind the apparent chaos", not order produced--"surprisingly", as Eschenbach himself emphasizes--BY chaos, or randomly-working physical processes).

But the idea fails, and fails here on a very basic level. "Emergent phenomenon" does not "explain" the "extremely stable system"--and the outstanding stability SHOULD be emphasized, as I have also done--it cannot, it is in fact logically opposed to it ("emergent phenomenon" is change, as Eschenbach's examples well show, while "extreme stability" MEANS unchanging).

The truth, as I mentioned when Eschenbach first brought out this recycled idea here, is much simpler (but more surprising, of course, in the tattered intellectual atmosphere of current, officially unquestionable, scientific dogma), and should have been obvious by now, if science had not gone so determinedly wrong following Darwin:

"Emergent Phenomenon", Or Design?

"Emergent phenomenon" is a desperate renaming of the observable truth, in order to avoid that truth. It is anti-scientific nonsense, which science will have to reject before real progress can be made. It is, in short, the same as saying "magic", which science once so proudly scorned, and by which it lifted itself up out of the ancient pit of superstition and "sacred writ".

The True Origin of Geocentrism: Another Truth That Must Not Be Mentioned

When you are a scientist with research findings that strike at the heart, not only of the current consensus, nor even the current paradigm in science, but at the whole tangle of man's most obsessively and religiously affirmed beliefs, and their uncounted variations, over the full course of known history--well, suffice it to say that you find yourself in the land of perpetual experiment, strugging to find a way to get your discoveries before the world, and not just a relative handful of open-minded individuals. This blog is an exploratory experiment, as are all my efforts on the internet.

I submitted the following comments on the not even wrong site of Peter Woit, where the subject of Copernicus's heliocentrism versus the church-sanctioned geocentrism is discussed, in the context of a new independent movie in which the views of scientists Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss are included. Woit and others seemed to me strangely unsure of the positions of those scientists on geocentrism; they also couldn't know that there is a truth behind the religious adherence to geocentrism, so I thought I would mention it to them:

Any physicist with an awareness of the careers of Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss knows they are strict followers of the "sacredness" of the modern academic consensus (they just pile on more empty-headed speculation to the accepted boundaries of scientific thought than others), so one should know beforehand that they are not going to embrace geocentrism, as it has always been understood. They are hidebound, while pretending to be on the cutting edge of new knowledge (as so many are apparently taught to be these days, as the "consensus" is indeed presented as settled fact, over and over and over again, for many, many, many years).

For those willing to learn new knowledge--that will leave the current sacred consensus in the dust, probably long after I am gone and can safely be recognized--the origin of the geocentric view is the Great Design I discovered and verified, encompassing the Earth and the entire solar system (see here and here, for example, for the simplest, most easily grasped evidence--that is, for competent, dispassionate scientists, though not for the emotionally defensive of the beloved consensus). Plainly stated, the Great Design was the motivation for all the religiously-held beliefs that gave rise to all the "ancient mysteries" of perennial popularity throughout history (including the ancient, original pseudosciences, like astrology, tarot, etc.), and the overall plan of that design, its core, was the mapping (or projection) of the celestial sphere onto the Earth sphere--a whole series of mappings, in fact, spanning a series of "ages" and "generations of the gods" over thousands of years--with, of course, the Earth necessarily at the center. The Earth is at the center of that great design, not the center of the universe as clueless later generations of "god-fearing" men--strict believers in a prehistoric consensus that retained only shattered fragments of the original truth--misapprehended and made religious certainty (and thus, religious mental tyranny).

To my surprise, that comment was almost instantly rejected, so I added:

My comment, informing of the true origin behind the false religious view of geocentrism, has been summarily rejected by you (yet you cannot say my explanation, and the sample evidence I cited, is wrong–you just don’t want to let it in).

That comment was also instantly rejected. Woit has published some previous comments I have submitted there, so obviously my choice of words in the above somehow kept him from appreciating the new knowledge, which explains so much of man's religious obsessions and perennial trials on Earth. Modern scientists have been inculcated with the belief that there is no truth at all, not just in, but behind, the ancient beliefs so at odds with rational thought, much less modern knowledge. They are mistaken, and avoiding what science now so desperately needs, a broader, deeper understanding of the origin of the world as we now know it.