Political Change Does Not Affect the Underlying Scientific Incompetence

The election of Donald Trump should herald the dismemberment of the political alarmism over so-called global warming, but it does not begin to address the underlying problem, of gross incompetence in science today. As I have tried to inform everyone, there is no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists -- and the incompetence in climate science is just the tip of the iceberg in science today, across the board. I originally wrote the following comment for a Jo Nova post in October 2011 (this was before I began saving links, so I can't put one here). My comment was specifically in response to a statement that it is so hard to get people to listen to "climate skeptics", and critically question the alarmists, because "The key is that so many benefit from the status-quo...":

That explanation is far downstream from the real cause: Dogma in science--the dogma that the fundamental theories of today are established facts. Even climate consensus skeptics don't realize it is just as bad throughout the earth and life sciences. The problem is that you can't correct climate science without first showing where it fails; there are too many bringing forth alternative theories, when everyone first needs to agree on the obvious errors in consensus theory (in climate, that means the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the radiation transfer theory that has thoughtlessly defined a stable climate system as just the opposite, one balanced on a knife edge, that can be overwhelmed by 0.04% of a gas necessary for all the life on Earth). The earth and life sciences are riddled with fundamental errors, precisely due to the dogmatic, rather than evidential, nature of their underpinning assumptions. It is all speculation piled upon unsupported assumptions, in the very foundations where they remain unquestioned, and an essentially religious belief (i.e., a hotly defensive, emotionally biased belief, inculcated from youth in every school) is the life's blood that sustains the illusion throughout society, and at the highest levels of authority and responsibility. I see people criticising the climate consensus on the basis of the Milankovitch theory, not realizing the latter is just as wrong-headed as the former. I see skeptics calling critics of evolution theory names, and dismissing them, without realizing that they are acting just like the defenders of "runaway climate". The problem is incompetence in all of science today, due precisely to unquestioned belief in ideas that, fundamentally, are just as wrong-headed as those which Aristotle used to hold up the development of science for 2,000 years (and Darwin's idea--basically just against design in the natural world--has set science on a dead end street for the last 150 years). The climate science mess is just the latest, harshest eruption of the consequences of unquestioned and unsupported dogma in the foundations of modern science. Don't try to judge, from a position of ignorance. Be humble, and self-disciplined, and learn. That is the lesson for our time (or, more likely now, the lesson OF our time, for those who come after).

What Do They Mean By "Climate"?

A few days ago (actually, on November 13th, so not just a few days ago) I wrote the following comment on the American Thinker site, to an article about "Trump and Hillary on Climate". (Mine was a scientific comment, the site and the article are political. I don't argue politics here, I am a scientist who tries to inform, even in the current general insanity.) I would not be bringing this up here, except that yesterday I visited the Climate Etc. site of Dr. Judith Curry, and read a comment there that led me to ask the question in the title of this post. The comment stated--with utter assurance, of course--that the global mean surface temperature (and "global warming" too, if my memory serves) has nothing to do with climate. Since I have been trying for a long time to inform everyone, in my own posts and in comments elsewhere, that there is a difference between what they appear to mean by "climate" and what I take to be the "global climate"--just that which is in fact claimed by the alarmists to change with "global warming"--here is my American Thinker comment (it would be a minor miracle if any of the regular members of Dr. Curry's ongoing "sociology of climate" therapy sessions--the Climate Etc. site, I mean--were to read this and take it to heart; the insanity is too entrenched in them). My comment began by responding to another comment that the climate alarmism was a "scam".:

On the political side, it was a scam, and even more, a criminal conspiracy, as is evident from the Democratic Party Platform specifically calling for suppression of "climate skeptics", taking away their very right to free speech in the public discourse.

On the science side, it should be emphasized that the incompetence of the scientists and the rise of false theories initiated and still maintain the political alarmism. Nothing illustrates this more forcefully than the line in the above article that climate is "the weather conditions prevailing in an area", while as Kwan's comment illustrates, people are induced to believe in "global warming", which is not "in an area" but a global average. Climate as "the weather...prevailing in an area" varies hugely over the Earth, from tropical heat to polar cold, and from desert dryness to rainforest wetness; but the global "climate", as defined by the global mean surface temperature, it turns out is quite stable--varying by no more than one-half to one degree centigrade, over any time scale--and its precise value is due only to our distance from the Sun and the thickness of our atmosphere. Even the difference in temperature between night and day, and the difference in the seasons, does not affect the global average temperature, because night and day are not global but hemispheric, and the same for the seasons (which are reversed between the north and south hemispheres).

The political alarmists, from Obama on down, changed the talking point from "global warming" to "climate change" when it became widely known that there has been an extended "global warming pause" in which the global mean surface temperature has clearly not been increasing, even according to the climate scientists' fraudulently "adjusted" temperature data. Even their calling it a "pause" in global warming, rather than the disproof of the global warming theory that it is, showed their fraudulent, unscientific bias and their willingness to lie to the public to control any public debate. This lie is on a par with the Benghazi lie, that the attack was a reaction to an anti-Muslim video.

The climate in an area can change, but the global "climate" is precisely fixed, utterly stable (as my own 2010 article, "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" makes clear, to any competent scientist and hopefully to any lay reader, who I wrote it for).

The Clockwork Moon Science ignores

[This is an article I originally wrote for Newsblaze.com back in June 2009, and I have since referenced it many times on the internet, most recently in my September 6th post here, "Undirected Evolution: The False Religious Dogma Strangling Science". I wrote it in an "entertaining" style, for Newsblaze's broad, lay audience.]

I don't know where you stand, dear reader, on the subject of whether or not our world shows deliberate design, but I can tell you something you may not know, because science absolutely refuses to admit it -- to the public and to itself: There is positive evidence of design, and not chance, going on out there.

This is not the most popular tack for a writer -- even a scientist like myself -- to take today. It's true a steady 40% of the country feels comfortable telling pollsters they don't believe in the evolution theory science insists upon, which pointedly denies any design in the natural world (and which, ironically, is partly based on the evidence of domestic breeding, which are the designs of man, of course). But when it involves strong argument, the country tends to split right down the middle, so I think only about half of the 40% who really believe in design in the natural world want to see it brought up again here. So I'm probably ticking off 80% of my readers, and I'll just quote Phoebe Buffet (of Friends) and say brightly: "Okay... let's do it!"

One of the most outstanding indications of a deliberate design actually lies a short way out in space, with our nearest neighbor, the Moon. The Moon is about 240,000 miles from the Earth on average. Its diameter is 2160 miles, and it subtends an angle of 0.527 degrees, on average, as seen from the Earth. That's about the apparent size of a dime seen from 6 feet away.

The Sun is about 93 million miles away, and about 865,000 miles in diameter. It's average apparent diameter, seen from the Earth, is 0.533 degrees. Compare that to the Moon's 0.527 degrees. They're essentially the same, 0.53 degrees across. That's why a total solar eclipse is possible: The Moon is precisely the right apparent size. Put another way, the Moon is at precisely the right distance from the Earth, on average, to totally eclipse the Sun.

Now, in a solar system littered with moons -- 135 of them the last time I checked -- our Moon is the only one that is both perfectly round and anywhere near the right size to precisely eclipse the Sun, as seen from its mother planet. And it does it precisely, on a precisely repeating cycle, like nothing less than a cleverly-designed clockwork. Most scientists brush off the Moon, and its clockwork, as a "cosmic coincidence". Ancient man was properly and reasonably awed by it. As a competent mathematical scientist, I am awed by it.

The Moon, the experts say with the absolute confidence of exacting research and extensive calculations, was blasted out of the Earth itself, very early in the history of Earth's development. The Moon is still receding from the Earth, very slowly, they say. So it wasn't always at just the right distance to totally eclipse the Sun, as it is now. This makes it even more astounding that, just by chance, after nearly 4.5 billion years of slow recession from the Earth, it should be at just the right distance from the Earth, throughout the recorded history of man (the last 6,000 years or so), to so precisely match the Sun in the sky, and figure so prominently in ancient man's religiously-held beliefs.

Furthermore, the Moon goes through phases, from new to full and back again, every month. (That's why we call it a "month"; it's a "moonth" -- "moon's" -- period, get it? Well, I bet 20% of you do.) These phases mimic the progression of a total eclipse, and underscore the total eclipse as the single recognizable theme of the Moon's design. Because that's what this "cosmic coincidence" obviously is, a deliberate design, made with deliberate intent: To emphasize, and memorialize, the total eclipse -- as a once-upon-a-time catastrophic extinguishing of the Sun's light by another body, perhaps. When the Sun "died", as the world's myths in fact claimed. That's why the eclipse was universally feared, up to modern times. (In the Norse myths, at Ragnarok the Sun was overtaken and eaten by a "wolf"; in the Greek, the Sun's chariot was driven out of its accustomed path by Phaethon, the Sun god's son, who was hurled down to destruction -- and in both accounts, the surface of the Earth was largely burned up.)

Ancient man knew something of this memorial, as a "sacred truth" never to be forgotten. He made calendars of the year according to the Moon's motion through the sky -- though that motion does not harmonize well with the true length of the year -- and some are still in use (the Jewish and Muslim calendars, for example). Is that creepy, or what?

The Avoidance Behavior Is Strong In This One

The wuwt site has a post on "Science is in deep trouble...", concerning the sorry consensus-defending state of peer-review and the wider world's mistaken reliance on it as the arbiter of scientific truth. One comment questioned the post, by falsely questioning the author's (Donna Laframboise, I think) qualifications, not her points; I consider that avoidance behavior, and my response is:

The system is broken and truth is where you find it. Those who follow their favorite prejudice, or dogma, rather than seeking the truth, wherever it lies, will not recognize the truth as such even when it is presented to them, already found and perfectly clear.*** Instead, they bolt for the nearest rationalization for not confronting the truth and accepting it through honest reason. Dogma is ascendant over honest reason in the world today, as never before (because the rot is so universal today, not just political or religious, as in the past). The very paradigms (the fundamental assumptions)--by which the people come to, and hold to, their beliefs in this time (in politics, in religion, in science, in society and civilization itself)--are being strained beyond their natural limits, and visibly failing, for those with eyes to see. The underlying problem is unquestioned dogmas, in every field of human endeavor, too long nurtured and by now too strongly believed by too many to be questioned by all (and thrown out) as they should be.

*** The most obvious example right now: Those who will vote for Hillary Clinton believe the system is working tolerably well and want it to continue as it is, while those who will vote for Trump see that it is fundamentally broken and needs immediate fixing. The truth is that, if people want real progress, they will have to change themselves, by letting go of the false dogmas that are now choking the system, in so many ways (as all the insults, dismissals and denials on all sides clearly show).

Planetary Rotation and Temperature: "Let go, Luke. Use the Force."

The Dr. Roy Spencer site has a post on "The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Warmer Its Average Temperature". My response:

As I have pointed out many times, for example here: The Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres, over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is essentially explained by the ratio of their solar distances alone (and precisely so both above and below the thick Venus cloud layer), despite a number of large differences in the two planet-plus-atmosphere situations that are assumed by climate scientists and their believers to affect the global mean temperature, but don't(!). (I won't repeat them all here, but Venus has 2400 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as does Earth, with no effect, so the "greenhouse effect" is precisely zero.)

It is quite foolish to take the position that the supposed effects of all those differences between the Venus and Earth atmospheres simply cancel one another out, by "coincidence", entirely, and as precisely as my Venus/Earth comparison indicates they would have to do. I wrote a little about this last April, here. And adding yet another large difference, between Venus and Earth, to the list of supposed causes for their temperature difference, only makes the "coincidence" argument more ridiculous. The reality, that only solar intensity is effective, is quite clear, and quite simply explained, physically, by the hydrostatic condition, as I have written over and over again.

Now Dr. Spencer (who is well respected by the "skeptics" in the climate debates, for his satellite measurements of global temperature, showing little or no global warming) brings up planetary rotation as yet another variable supposedly affecting the global temperature. Yet Earth rotates in 1 day, while Venus rotates in 243 days--yet the Venus/Earth temperature ratio shows that huge difference, just like all the other huge differences between Venus and Earth, has NO EFFECT upon the temperature. The temperature-vs-pressure curves of Venus and Earth are the same, when just their different solar distances are taken into account, and nothing else.

So please, Dr. Spencer, and every other atmospheric or climate scientist, and every other believer in the current climate dogma: "Let go, Luke. Use the Force."

Nikolov and Zeller Again

The tallbloke site has another post on Nikolov and Zeller's "Unified Climate Theory", about a Washington Post interview with Nikolov. Their latest paper was withdrawn (by "common agreement with the authors and editors") because they used pseudonyms to get past the consensus guardians that have long made a mockery of peer review (I gave up on peer review years ago--the defense of scientific dogma is just too strong, and universal). My response (and I have made the following criticisms many times before):

“Common agreement with the authors and editors” is a whitewash. If the paper passed on “scientific merit”, then the editor should have politely explained that they needed to publish the paper with the authors’ real names, and THAT should have been done “by common agreement with the authors and editors”.

Nikolov and Zeller still don’t get it, though:

“It is simply the hydrostatic condition”,

and that has been known for well over a century, in the Standard Atmosphere model, which my 2010 Venus/Earth temperature-vs-pressure comparison precisely confirmed.

And “The results from our empirical data analysis suggest that the thermal effect of the atmosphere is analogous to a compression heating” merely confuses the transient (and local) effect of compression with the constant (and global) effect of the hydrostatic condition (most simply described as “the pressure at any level in the atmosphere is just the weight of the atmosphere above that level”). The Standard Atmosphere, as everyone should know by now (I have been pointing it out for 6 years now), is based upon the hydrostatic condition.

And the figure really does no more than agree with what my Venus/Earth comparison showed more fully and clearly, that those two planets have essentially the same temperature-vs-pressure profile, over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, when only their different distances from the Sun are taken into account. Mars, Moon, and Triton are useless, as the curve is vertical–hence, the “thermal enhancement” is completely indeterminate–for very low surface pressure. I have also pointed out, many times, that the surface temperature of Titan is too low, by about 7K, when compared to Earth in the same way I compared Earth and Venus, and I have given the most likely reason for that (an observed haze in Titan’s atmosphere), while Nikolov and Zeller’s theory cannot even address it (I am surprised they even show Titan as a point off the curve, not on it, since previously they have reported that their theoretical relationship–the curve–predicts precisely the surface temperature of Titan). And Venus’s planet-wide, thick cloud cover does not affect its T-P profile, outside of the clouds themselves, so continually bringing in clouds to explain global temperature variations is also wrong. Sorry, but my Venus/Earth comparison is definitive, and everyone (consensus believer or skeptical critic) will have to admit that in the end.

My Venus/Earth analysis is earlier, better, and more simply and clearly explained, by the hydrostatic condition alone (without any “compressional heating”, which is irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial). The Standard Atmosphere, over a century old, contains that, so their “new understanding” is not new; it has just been ignored, for 2 generations now, by incompetent scientists and unethical politicians bent on world dominion.

Undirected Evolution: The False Religious Dogma Strangling True Science

The wuwt site has a post on news of research suggesting that "a Mercury-sized planet" collided with Earth relatively soon after the Earth was first formed, and this supposedly accounts for the amount of carbon in and on the Earth. My response:

Both this post and most of the comments following it (the uncritical ones) are all incompetent, dogmatic speculation (i.e., speculation within the limits of current scientific dogma), not science.

The current scientific dogma, of course, is the assumption that the Earth, just like the life on it, developed through undirected evolution, through undirected physical processes alone**. The only way today's "scientists" can imagine this for the Earth is through the intervention (remember that word, boys and girls) of an ever-growing list of "cosmic accidents", like the hypothesized formation (and the amazing Sun-eclipsing orbit) of the Moon***; the coming of all that water; the development of an oxygen-rich atmosphere, and so on ad infinitum (and all in the proper order, though all of them essentially "in the beginning", as far as anyone can really tell)--and of course, whatever made the Earth's orbit so nearly a perfect circle, despite all those "accidents" (and despite Milankovitch's fantasies of a perpetual motion of repetitive orbital instability).

I know better. Undirected evolution is a failed hypothesis. The true history of the Earth, and no doubt of the life on it, is one of successive designs--call it Intelligent Intervention (the "Intelligent" in "Intelligent Design" is superfluous, by the way; design requires intelligence, by definition). The "Great Design of the 'gods"" was the last one, and that is the new paradigm my research ushers in. Bye bye, undirected "evolution". Bye bye, the easy dogmas of today's earth and life sciences, which have all been falsified, although today's "scientists" refuse to hear of it.

**Don't bother claiming "natural selection" directs evolution; that is a false bootstrap, to raise up all of life's order. "Natural selection" is really just a euphemism for design--just when is life supposed to have been sufficiently developed to allow "natural selection" to direct further "evolution"? Surely not "in the beginning".

***I hope that link still works. If not, just search for "The Clockwork Moon Science Ignores", by me. Or maybe I'll put it up here on my blog.

My Bio, As I See It

I received (from one Scott Brooks) a request for my full "bio" (biographical information), so I wrote the following, for anyone who is interested (one caveat: this is not definitive, just what came to me just now):

We live in a time of general incompetence, in science and in society, which seems to have come upon us suddenly, yet which has had a long buildup. I'm afraid academic titles don't mean what they used to mean and, in my own case, nearly 40 years ago I walked away from academia before getting my PhD, with clear eyes and a light heart, untainted by any sense of regret or loss. Further academic education had lost its relevance to me-- after 3 and 1/2 years spent getting a Master's in Physics, and 2 more years of unfocused work to find a PhD topic of any interest at all to me--so I shed it, easily and casually. I did, however, retain the notion that I was a good physicist, and that I could correct or remake science, even on a rather grand scale, given the right circumstances. That, it has turned out, was not the vain pridefulness of untested youth, but a prescient notion, which took nearly 20 years to come to fulfillment.

Along the way, I have enjoyed, among many other things, scientific programming and high-tech electronics in the industrial sector. My specialty, one might say, was modelling physical systems, such as high-tech instruments--or simply, solving any problems associated with understanding the detailed physical workings of the things that were brought to my attention. (One might say these were my "Einstein at the patent office" years. Great accomplishments do not come out of nothing, and take time both to come to mind and to develop through focused, disciplined research.)

I was also unemployed for substantial periods of time, primarily because (looking back with philosophical hindsight) when I was employed I was generally underemployed, simply by being in a subordinate position doing what my employers wanted done. What I was really meant to do in life was to discover the new, not be a technician of the old. Our society and our educational system have gone down, just as I saw it coming 40 years ago, in demanding technicians instead of scientists, educating people to exercise the consensus (or the latest proprietary software), rather than to keep digging for the truth regardless of current beliefs and popular fads.

Let's make a long story short now. In 1992, I got a job as a Research Associate analyzing data on remote aerosols. My understanding split with what my employer/superior wanted to hear, and I ended up submitting my own papers to a peer-reviewed journal, for which I was "terminated due to cuts in funding" (the official line, false but unquestioned and unquestionable). It took me two years to get those papers published, but I did. And long before I even submitted them, I knew I was rewriting the "official" understanding of those remote aerosols. Basically, what I did was pursue my own research program into understanding how the constituents in those aerosols were measured. By the time I was ready to write the paper(s)--one paper became two--I realized I was my own Principal Investigator, for the first time, and I knew I was notably good at it. I now knew I could, and should, be such an investigator--a Discoverer, like the most famous discoverers of old, the founders of modern science.

So when I was "terminated", in 1994, I kept my head up and my mind open to new possibilities. And over the next 3 years a number of critical strands drew together, around the subject of the "ancient mysteries"--myths, superstitions, "sacred" texts, megalithic monuments, and the ever-sharp shards of ancient science and its attendant ancient philosophy, with the constellations on the celestial sphere not the least of it all.

In 1997, I discovered the Great Design of the "gods", and all that the world has done since is, it seems more and more the case to me, no more than the avoidance of that great truth. There is a new Foundation of the world to be studied, and I am the Discoverer of it, the Galileo (and Copernicus, and Newton) of this time--their spirit, that is. No, I'm not saying I'm great--I'm saying that is how great the Great Design is; but I would be a fool not to be proud of myself for discovering it, as no one else ever did. Discovering it was like walking into a valley of pure gold (quite literally so, when I came to realize the central meaning of "gold", or "golden", in the descriptions of so many things in ancient myths). Its attendant discoveries, of each separate mystery, were like an endless series of gold nuggets, lying out in the open waiting to be picked up since time immemorial, since the beginning in fact.

My small contributions to climate science (which I consider just those of a competent physical scientist) are nothing compared to that, but the world is hung up on the pathetic mess of scientific incompetence and political tyranny that make up the "climate debate". And false dogmas are generally ascendant over good honest reason in the world now. How can I bring forth the new foundation, the new paradigm, in such circumstances? False dogmas mean inevitable war, and today we see groups (like Muslim jihadists, and angry young black men in America) that seem hell-bent on going to war, any war they can lay their hands on. I would call on those groups to lay down their arms, their false dogmas, and listen to me. Listen to new, greater truth and understanding of the world that seems so eternally, hopelessly divided. The people of the world need to learn the true origin of it all, and unlearn the false dogmas that have kept the wars going, throughout history. And that means they--you--will have to take up where I leave off, and study it. Study the world, and what has been handed down since the beginning, and separate the wheat from the chaff, the good from the bad, the true from the false. Above all, set "treat others as you want to be treated by others" above "an eye for an eye". The latter belief is being chained to a hateful, blind past; the former, seeing the truth and a hopeful tomorrow.

Dr. Roy Spencer and the Myth of a Valid Global Climate Science

The Dr. Roy Spencer site has a post, about an experiment to show a cold object can warm a hotter object (by interposing a cool object between the hotter object and a much colder object). My response:

"Now, this experiment does not prove that gases can do what the cardboard has done....It only answers the 2nd Law violation claims some have made against a cool object (here, the cardboard sheet) causing a heated object to be warmer than if the cool object was not present, which is what the Earth’s greenhouse effect does."

The "Earth's greenhouse effect" is theorized to work by CO2 re-emitting radiation back to the planetary surface, thus warming it. The cardboard sheet does not work that way; it works, metaphorically speaking (in analogy with the real atmosphere), by REMOVING the "cold of space" from around the "heated Earth" (i.e., the cold of the dry ice from the effective vicinity of the heated surface), by replacing it with the "cardboard sheet" of the atmosphere (or the CO2 in the atmosphere).

Obviously, what your experiment really does, effectively, is force a new, reduced temperature "lapse rate" (say the cardboard sheet effectively removes the dry ice, or "outer space", to infinity, or at least to a much greater distance), so that the heated surface stabilizes at a higher temperature. That is not possible in the real atmosphere; the lapse rate is just -g/c (i.e., it is governed only by the acceleration due to gravity and the effective specific heat of the atmosphere), and has nothing to do with the amount of CO2 (or any other constituent) in the real atmosphere. My own "experiment", the Venus/Earth temperature-vs-pressure comparison proves what I have just written, for CO2 concentration all the way from 0.04% to 96.5% (the two planets' T-P curves, over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, are essentially the same--and precisely so, above and below the Venus cloud layer--when only Venus's smaller distance from the Sun is taken into account, despite Earth having only 0.04% atmospheric CO2 while Venus has a nearly pure, 96.5% CO2). Obviously, only the intensity of the incident solar radiation affects the absolute global mean temperature, throughout the tropospheric air column.

I don't know why so many, including yourself, continue to waste their efforts arguing over the "2nd Law" when the First Law is the one obviously being broken in the consensus theory. See "Runaway Global Warming Is Scientific Hysteria". In the consensus theory, the Earth's surface is emitting a mean 390 W/m^2, which is greater than the mean 342 W/m^2 incident from the Sun. That is a gross violation of the conservation of energy. And, also obviously (to this independent physicist), it is 390 W/m^2 because that is the intensity of radiation coming off a blackbody, surrounded by vacuum, at the same temperature as the Earth's surface (288K global mean), and atmospheric scientists must be "measuring" not the radiation being emitted, but the temperature of the surface, misinterpreted as an equivalent blackbody radiation intensity. The only problem, aside from the clear violation of conservation of energy, is that the Earth's surface is not surrounded by vacuum; even a blackbody, with an atmosphere, would not radiate 390 W/m^2 from its surface, because it would also lose heat by conduction and convection, so it could only radiate 390 W/m^2 minus the power per unit area lost through those other transfers of heat from the surface.

And despite what radiation transfer theorists and defenders claim, the Earth is not a blackbody by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Look at it from space: It is a "Big Blue Marble", not a "Big Black Marble", partially covered by fleecy white clouds.

Of course, the Earth's surface is assumed to be a blackbody in the radiation transfer theory as applied in climate science, so even that sacrosanct (to all you believers) theory is wrong, and wrong-headed, and clearly incompetent.

Nor is most of the incident solar power in visible light, as one commenter above claims. It is only about 45% visible, about the same amount infrared, and 8-10% ultraviolet. Nor is the atmosphere transparent to incident solar radiation, as the infamous Trenberth-Kiehl "Earth Energy Budget" shows fully 67 W/m^2 out of the mean incident 342 W/m^2 is absorbed in the atmosphere. That's about 20% of the incident solar, absorbed in the atmosphere. And that is how, according to my Venus/Earth findings, the atmosphere is REALLY warmed, to its stable global mean, not from the surface at all. (And of course, that is how all the other massive atmospheres in the solar system are obviously warmed, for their clouds absorb all of the incident solar before it can reach those other planetary surfaces, and all of them show a negative lapse rate structure, just like Earth does. That the troposphere might be warmed by incident solar, not from the surface, was the first great hole I found in the consensus theory, and again, my Venus/Earth comparison proves it is so--to any competent physicist, in my professional opinion.

Democratic Party Authorities Are Acting Criminally to Suppress the Truth About Climate

The wuwt site has a post on "blowback" to the execrable effort by Democratic state attorneys general (AGs) and other Democrats in the Obama administration to make criminals out of "climate skeptics". My response:

You should all send a harsh letter to your local newspapers (and yes, to your congressional representatives, but the media are the main thing), and include the graph comparing the temperatures in the atmospheres of Earth (with 0.04% carbon dioxide) and Venus (with 96.5%) provided in my 2010 post, "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect". Tell them, don't ask them, to show the American public that even a runaway carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere (from 0.04% to 96.5%) has no warming effect at all upon the global mean temperature, at any level of the atmosphere, over the full range of pressures in Earth's troposphere. The only thing that affects that global mean temperature is the distance of the planet from the Sun (the graph I provided takes account of that, and shows that the curves for Venus and Earth are essentially the same, despite the huge difference in carbon dioxide in the two atmospheres).

You need to impress upon the media and your political representatives that the situation is NOT "normal", not due to the usual differences of scientific opinion, but that the consensus "climate science" is NOT REAL, a general scientific incompetence is behind the current POLITICAL "debate", and all of our supposedly most authoritative, and trusted, institutions have been suborned by this mass delusion.

It is useless to say things like "climate change MAY be real and is probably partially due to anthropogenic causes". It is incompetent to ignore or dismiss my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison.

The Continuing Enchantment of the Big Black Marble

The "lukewarmer" wuwt site has a post by fellow lukewarmer Christopher Monckton, purporting to derive the CO2 "climate sensitivity" by no-doubt-settled science (theory, that is). My response:

Lukewarmers like Monckton and Anthony Watts believe in the radiation transfer theory. I don't. As I wrote just a few weeks ago (June 30th), in the post "It Beggars the Imagination", "There are other obvious weaknesses in the radiation transfer theory ...but the main one is this error of making everything a blackbody or a quasi-blackbody, mitigated only by a fudge factor called the 'emissivity factor'."

I won't quote further, or at length, from what I wrote before. I will merely point out that Monckton's exposition of consensus theory assumes not only that the Earth's surface emits as a blackbody surrounded by vacuum, but that the so-called "emission level" in the atmosphere does also.

He says that 97% of the Earth's albedo, or reflected fraction of solar radiation, is due to clouds, not the Earth's surface. That is the same as saying the surface reflects relatively little, and is of course consistent with calling the Earth's surface a blackbody--as the radiation transfer theory assumes--but it is belied by looking at the Earth from space. The Earth does not look like a dark object (a black body) partially covered by bright clouds; it looks like "a big blue marble"--remember? One can see the landmasses, and their colors, clearly from low-earth orbit. It is simply NOT a blackbody, and cannot emit as one. (One might, and perhaps should, also question what fraction of Earth's clouds do not reach as high as the "emission level"--about 5km altitude--since Monckton subtracts the full value of the albedo from the incident solar intensity, and thus assumes all clouds rise higher than that "emission level"; but I don't know the precise answer, and it is of lesser importance than the "blackbody earth" error I want to emphasize.

When Monckton also says the emissivity of the "emission level" in the atmosphere is 1, that defines it as a blackbody also. This only underlines what I wrote in that "It Beggars the Imagination" post, that the theory assumes(!) every level, including the surface, is a blackbody or a quasi-blackbody. Monckton says there are two blackbody levels (and conveniently, just those he is interested in).

The obvious reason for such a ridiculous assumption, as I have written for years now, is that the scientists "measure" what they think are the radiation levels in the atmosphere, at the various levels, when what they must REALLY be doing is measuring the TEMPERATURE, misinterpreted as the equivalent blackbody radiation intensity.

I knew this must be the case years ago, when I realized the "radiation" "measured" coming off the Earth's surface was just that which would be emitted by a blackbody at the same temperature as that surface; but seeing it claimed by Monckton that the "emission level" is also essentially a blackbody drives home the point that the radiation transfer theory is fundamentally unsound, with local temperature responsible for the "radiation" being measured, not vice-versa. (And again, radiation transfer theorists are comparing the Earth's surface to a blackbody SURROUNDED BY VACUUM, which can only give off heat by radiation; while of course, the Earth's surface is surrounded by atmosphere, and heat is lost there by conduction and convection, as well as by radiation--so the whole idea is stillborn, unworkable according to basic physics, i.e., essentially by definition).

Again, it beggars the imagination, that even the "lukewarmers" (the heroes, to so many lay "climate skeptics") should be so enamored of the false radiation transfer theory (which is also disproved by the "global warming pause" of the last nearly 20 years, but an unwary layperson would hardly know it from the continued devotion to the dogma (or propaganda) of the "settled science", which is not science but only mass delusion).

Climate Science and the Vampire of Societal Influences

The klimazwiebel site has a post, "What Future For Science?", and the answer to that question appears to be "societal influence" and sociology in particular. My response:

"science...has lost its innovative role in solving problems for society"

My response: That statement muddles the fundamental distinction that has to be made between SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE--"problems for society" are SUBJECTIVE accounts, while the findings of science are OBJECTIVE.

"...science being left to itself, operating under a mandate that is not responsive to societal demands"

My response: "Societal demands", being subjective (and divided and divisive/or often wrong, like the current climate alarmism) CANNOT (and MUST NOT ATTEMPT TO) rule science (see below, about "finding the truth").

"does science strive to find something we could call truth?"

My response: Yes, by definition. Any "scientist" who does not strive always to find the truth (and the current generation of climate scientists is not--see my climate science posts on my blog) is NOT doing science. There is today no valid "global climate" science (i.e., a true science of the global mean surface temperature and how and why it varies) and NO COMPETENT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (and thus, it should go without saying, NO COMPETENT GOVERNMENTAL OR SOCIETAL CLIMATE POLICY POSSIBLE).

"science will be made more reliable and more valuable for society today not by being protected from societal influences but instead by being brought, carefully and appropriately, into a direct, open, and intimate relationship with those influences."

My answer: The politicization of climate science, and the Leftist agenda of coercing everyone to believe in the false science, obviously shows that "societal influences"--in this case, politics--are not making climate science better, they are only openly promoting tyranny and the suppression of critical scientific thinking and freedom of speech itself (the Democratic party in the U.S. is now obviously a criminal conspiracy, with its calls to treat "climate skeptics" as criminals).

"But many other branches of science study things that cannot be unambiguously characterized and that may not behave predictably even under controlled conditions — things like ... the earth’s climate. Such things may differ from one day to the next, from one place or one person to another. Their behavior cannot be described and predicted by the sorts of general laws that physicists and chemists call upon, since their characteristics are not invariable but rather depend on the context in which they are studied and the way they are defined."

My answer: That statement is so bad, it is "irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial", as Perry Mason would say. It basically says that earth's climate (and all those other examples mentioned in the text) CANNOT BE STUDIED SCIENTIFICALLY, or equivalently, THERE IS NO TRUTH TO BE FOUND IN THEM. And for sociologists, I would further state: TRUTH MEANS OBJECTIVE TRUTH, not subjective (e.g., sociological) categorization and feelings/emotional biases.

It Is a Test, World

The question is, how to make people--especially "experts", and all those who follow them unquestioningly, as though they really were expert--get it into their heads that they are not thinking straight?

I cannot, as a hard scientist, take any part of climate science seriously. The very "global temperature" data on which all of it depends is constantly being revised, and always to make the "global warming" more "certain" and more "unprecedented". The systematic, always biased adjustments, and continued, late reformations of the temperature record, tell me and any competent scientist it is a lie, plain and simple, told to affirm and defend a delusion, nothing more. The atmospheric radiation transfer theory is founded upon the sand of a "blackbody" Earth, which imposes a gross violation of the fundamental law of conservation of energy from the very beginning of any consideration or debate, and the simple Venus/Earth temperatures-vs-pressure comparison proves there is no "global warming CO2 greenhouse effect" at all. The "experts" are reduced to averring, as holy "consensus", that heat energy escaping from the Earth's surface can be "trapped" by CO2 and transferred, against the ever-present and all-governing temperature gradient, as reradiated radiation ("backradiation"). It is a lie.

And after a century of supposed global warming, the "global mean temperature" today, as prescribed by current "expert" machinations, is still below what the Standard Atmosphere indicated it was a century ago. And the Standard Atmosphere is precisely confirmed by that Venus/Earth comparison, and so reveals--almost effortlessly--the blatant lie, or dogmatic delusion, of "global warming".

And the wider, non-scientific world is going insane, with the Left intent upon coercing the world into obedience to its delusional dictates, and the U.S. Presidential candidate on the "Right" being outright rejected, by the Right itself (not to mention, by the Left)--because he insists upon telling the truth, and they all find the truth too harsh for their tender ears.

People need to let go of personal prejudices, and look for the truth. Ask yourselves, who is telling the truth, and who is hiding it? That is the test, for the whole world, now; can people do that? Will they, or will they not, face the truth? Will you, or won't you? That is the simple test.

Dr. Spencer, It Is Simply the Hydrostatic Condition

The Dr. Roy Spencer site has a post, "The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect or Atmospheric Pressure?". For what it's worth, that is the wrong way to pose the question, between those for and against the greenhouse effect. But too many "skeptics" of consensus climate science make the same mistake, even now, nearly 6 years after my 2010 "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" post. So I want to make the point yet again, as I have over and over, that it is not the atmospheric pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere that warms the atmosphere; it is the vertical pressure DISTRIBUTION, due to the hydrostatic condition of the troposphere, that produces the vertical TEMPERATURE distribution (the negative-lapse-rate structure) which governs the global mean temperature (at any given pressure level in the atmosphere, and for a given level of incident solar radiation).

So Dr. Spencer's question should be, "The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect or the Hydrostatic Condition?" And the answer, as my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison definitively shows, is the latter.

It Beggars the Imagination

When I first became aware of the "global warming" debate in late 2009 (a debate which was, years later, infamously changed to "climate change" when the "global warming pause" from 1997 to the present made it "politically expedient" to direct attention away from the continuing LACK of scientifically measurable global warming), I knew as a hard scientist that to find the truth I needed to dive to the heart of the matter and first seek definitive evidence CONTRARY to the consensus climate theory (of the "global warming greenhouse effect"), because there is no use holding, much less promulgating to the world, a theory that is definitively contradicted by real-world observations. Any scientist working within a theory always needs to keep a close eye out for such game-ending observations; it's known as looking for weaknesses in the theory being followed.

I have since found out that the weaknesses far outweigh the claims, and overwhelm the theory, at every turn, throughout climate science, and this is true not just of the "greenhouse effect", but even of the more fundamental "radiation transfer theory", which outlandishly treats the Earth's surface as a blackbody surrounded by vacuum (because atmospheric scientists "measure" the "radiation" coming off the Earth as just that coming off such a vacuum-surrounded blackbody). This fact alone should have caused competent scientists to demand a better radiation transfer theory, on the grounds that the "observed" Earth radiation is almost certainly a misnomer, and is really a measure of the TEMPERATURE of the surface, mistakenly interpreted as a blackbody radiation intensity (and a real "thermal radiation" spectrum). When one looks at the fundamental assumptions in the radiation transfer theory, one sees this error at a glance, because the theory divides the atmosphere into many layers, and the layers are all assumed to be "grey body" radiators, that is, blackbody radiators attenuated only by a local "emissivity" factor (a constant, less than 1, multiplying the fundamental Planck distribution spectrum of a blackbody). There are other obvious weaknesses in the radiation transfer theory (I have recognized it as basically a light extinction model, not a radiation transfer model), but the main one is this error of making everything a blackbody or a quasi-blackbody, mitigated only by a fudge factor called the "emissivity factor". A graduate student in physics could see that this theory almost certainly only works because the atmosphere is in fact subject to a strict vertical temperature distribution, a predominant, set (i.e., unchanging) distribution of temperatures, and so long as you have a predominant, unchanging set of temperatures, you can formally replace it with a set of "blackbodies", or "greybodies" with "emissivity" fudge factors. Such a theory won't allow you to predict temperature from radiation "forcings", because the reality works just the opposite way, with temperature controlling the "radiation" being measured, not vice-versa. But climate scientists don't want to question that theory, even though their models, based upon "radiation forcings", are infamously unable to track the observable global mean surface temperature. As I have found, from my 2010 Venus/Earth atmospheric temperatures comparison, it is the simple, set temperature distribution of the troposphere (known as the "lapse rate" structure) that controls the global mean temperature, not any constituent of the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide (CO2) or other so-called "greenhouse gases". That set, vertical temperature distribution can be overwhelmed, but only near the surface, by local and transient causes including night versus day, the seasons, localized temperature inversions and weather changes (of course it varies with latitude, but you can use an average, or mid-latitudinal, lapse rate structure, as the century-old Standard Atmosphere does); but it rules the global mean temperature, at any level in the troposphere, utterly, and the Venus/Earth comparison proves that definitively.

In the context of that Venus/Earth comparison, this post is about emphasizing how only the difference in the distance of the two planets from the Sun accounts for the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, which is essentially a constant (1.176) over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures (above and below the thick Venus cloud layer). This fact should be emphasized because of the huge differences in the conditions in the two planetary atmospheres, all of which are presumed by climate scientists to affect the temperature, but which have precisely zero effect in actuality. These differences include the amount of CO2 in the air (0.04% in Earth's versus 96.5% in Venus's); the amount of sunlight reflected, not absorbed, by the planet (either at the surface or off the planetwide cloud layer of Venus), 30% by Earth and 70% or more from Venus; and the difference in planetary surface (Earth being 70% ocean, Venus all solid crust).

But there is a further huge difference in the two planets, in the theory learned and defended by climate scientists, and this post was written primarily to remind everyone of it. It is a truism among today's climate and atmospheric scientists that "the Sun warms the Earth, and the Earth warms the atmosphere". But that physical "explanation" certainly doesn't extend to the other, cloud-enshrouded planets, which all show the same "negative lapse rate" structure that Earth's atmosphere does, even though their clouds absorb all of the sunlight before it can reach the surface. So the lapse rate structure does not depend upon warming the planetary surface first. As mentioned in my Venus/Earth comparison post, other physicists have pointed out that conditions for the "greenhouse effect" are not met on Venus, precisely because the effect requires that the atmosphere be heated from the surface, and not enough sunlight gets through to the surface there to heat it first.

So the biggest "difference" (though it's not real) is the different physics one has to imagine for atmospheric warming on Earth versus Venus. Venus, and all the other planets with massive atmospheres are obviously warmed from the top down, while Earth is believed by today's scientists to be warmed from the surface. Add that "difference", in the supposed fundamental physics of atmospheric warming, to all those other differences between Venus and Earth. And yet, the two atmospheres don't respond differently at all, to all those differences; only the distance from the Sun matters, very precisely.

Despite all the work that has gone into the theories championed and defended by atmospheric and climate scientists, despite the lifetimes of work that have been invested in them, the simple Venus/Earth comparison I did, fully 19 years after the Venus data I used became available, tells me--and any competent physical scientist--they are wrong, and wrong-headed, and indeed incompetent (because I am not a "climate expert", and what I have done is what any competent scientist, even any student of science, should have done more than a generation ago). This state of affairs beggars the imagination--and yet it goes on, as a runaway political agenda, and a cult idea ("global warming", or "climate change"), that is sowing the seeds of destruction in every direction, throughout the world.

The New Paradigm: Beyond Sunken Cities and Rifted, Drifting Continents

The climate etc site of climate professor Judith Curry has a guest post, "Canopus, Herakleion, New Orleans and Continental Rifts", on an "alternative perception of sea level rise and climate change". By "alternative perception" the author, Anthony Lucas, means an alternative theory to the consensus earth science (i.e., plate tectonics), to wit an "expanding Earth" theory, in which he considers the above-named cities to be located on rifts which, rather than themselves sinking into the sea, are surrounded by a generally rising Earth's crust--globally rising, that is, as the "expanding Earth" phrase makes clear, and apparently bringing the sea level (but not the rift area, as much) up with it. This "alternate perception" seems to me to be a strained interpretation, and highlights the confusion inherent in current claims about "sea level rise", complicated as they are by claims of land subsidence (with the further uncertainty between "regional" and "global" effects).

If scientists want to get past all of this confusion in the earth sciences, they will have to confront and accept my finding and verification of the Great Design of the "gods". (Yes, I know that sounds like a "crank" idea, but it is the literal, physical truth, and seamlessly marries modern science with the ancient mysteries, which originated in the world-changing deeds of those who were, because of such wondrous deeds, known as the "gods"--in other words, no hype here, just the plain truth, about the re-formation of the Earth and solar system, the premiere event in the history of man on Earth, lasting over thousands of years before the beginning of known history).

I wrote about an Independent Confirmation of the Design by consensus scientists, back in 2006. Those scientists (Sears et al.) found a "truncated-icosahedral" pattern in the breakup of the former supercontinents of Laurasia and Gondwana, a pattern with the same symmetry as the dodecahedral pattern I discovered in the Design.

At the end of that article, I wrote, with respect to the "Expanding Earth" theory:

Now my work is independent of any “expanding Earth” theory, nor have I looked into it at all, except for that one important point I mentioned: In his papers, Sears gave the single edge length exhibited in the truncated-icosahedral tessellation as 23.28 degrees. In the regular dodecahedron design of the Earth I found, the edge length is some 41.81 degrees. Now, in the context of a possible expansion of the Earth, the truncated-icosahedral pattern can be formed from the regular dodecahedron by an expansion of the surface, with the individual pentagons of the dodecahedron separating from one another on the expanding surface and coming into the truncated-icosahedral pattern, with the pentagons separated by hexagonal areas. In other words, if the expansion was done to deliberately transform a dodecahedron into a truncated-icosahedron--or to imply such a process--then the radius of the Earth would have been expanded from its initial value to 41.81/23.28 times that value, or 1.8 times its original value. Since the Earth radius is now some 3,963 miles, its original radius would have been some 2,200 miles.

2,200 miles is just the radius of the Earth’s core, as established by modern science.

So a deliberate world design, involving either a real or an implied expansion of the Earth to enable transforming a dodecahedron into a truncated icosahedron, explains the precise relative radii of the Earth and its core.

So, regardless of any supposed present-day continental drift, and regardless of whether the Earth was actually expanded or not, a deliberate, designed re-formation is the essential key to understanding the Earth as we now find it. That is what will remove the confusion in earth science.

Global "Climate Change" Is a Lie, and Must Be Denied

Climatedepot continues to inform about the political war against "climate deniers", with a post, "Newsweek: Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change?" My reaction:

Does anyone have a Constitutional right to deny a lie? That is what the political phrase "climate change" is. And never mind "Constitutional", Newsweek, the question should be: Does anyone have the right to deny my (or any individual's, or group's) INALIENABLE (not just "Constitutional") right to deny that lie, no matter how many (including the mainstream media, like Newsweek) have been seduced into believing it?

Does anyone have a right to expose false dogma at the heart of the "science" behind that lie, by showing that science to be contrary to the simple but unyielding facts; that it deludedly ignores or outright denies those facts, in favor of a theory that has been falsified, and should have been falsified, within science itself, long ago, before ever it gave rise to the cancerous political abuse we now see throughout our "authoritative" (only now just corrupt and incompetent) institutions (like the AAAS, and all the others mentioned in the Newsweek article, as well as Newsweek itself and all of the mainstream media, which pretend to be "the people's voice")?

Like it or not, I have that right. So does Exxon. Anyone who disagrees is part of the destructive, fanatical cult that now holds political power in America--and that fanatical cult is the real problem, not the solution. It has proven itself to be NOT the "change we can believe in" after all. It has proven itself a big lie, and a monster. I have given the facts against "climate science", as I know them, in earlier posts, and I won't put them here. Look them up, Newsweek. Do your real job.

A "Climate-Political Nightmare", But So Much More

The notrickszone site has a post, on the "climate-political nightmare" of Brexit (Britain leaving the European Union, due to a referendum of its outraged population, not its feckless political leaders). My response:

Here's a new word (I haven't seen it used yet, anyway), to describe the situation: Dementia. Total dementia, being "serious" about "climate policy". The REAL question is, how do we restore sanity, when the "top scientists", and the "97% consensus", are the loons? When the politicians pushing the alarm buttons are engaged in a criminal conspiracy for control, not reasoned policy-making? When the ordinary man or woman (much less the scientists, on BOTH SIDES of the debate) cannot and will not come to grips with that sorry fact, for whatever reasons? What the worried world needs to do is begin to come to grips with the fact that the "climate science" is totally wrong, and wrong-headed, and incompetent: There IS NO global warming greenhouse effect due to "greenhouse gases" like CO2, and there is not even any proven "global warming" (see my recent post, "Responding to a Believer in False Science") and thus climate science is a waste of everyone's time and concern. And that truth means also (and this is too bitter a pill for scientists, or anyone, to accept, who doesn't already know what will replace it), the reigning paradigm in modern science--that the world in all its amazing forms and processes just came out of undirected physical processes, which in and of themselves can produce only chaos, yet somehow were restrained by "evolution" to become only like cogs in a precisely-functioning world-machine--a DESIGNED machine--is failing, has in fact (in climate science, but actually across the board) failed. Climate science today is based upon the belief that the world in all its magnificence is an accident, a very lucky accident but still an accident, and as such it can "come apart" in its formerly orderly workings, with a "runaway global warming"; that it can do so due to a tiny increase in a very tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.04% CO2, up from 0.028%, according to the "experts").

It is a monstrous delusion, from the reigning paradigm (of "undirected evolution" of the world) on down to the frantic adjustments and continuing tinkering with the "global temperature" data, to make it fit the incompetent scientists' imagined "science", and the politicians' desired control over all the people.

The world is divided, and can only be divided further, and to the point of world war itself, by such aggressive dementia. Think of it this way: Climate science has become a jihad, a holy war, against all who would oppose it. It is courting its own destruction, and the longer it is respected, in ANY way, in any of its parts, any of its "explanations", it sows the seeds of destruction in all directions, to all of us.

What Incompetent Climate Science Has Wrought: A Criminal Conspiracy on the Left, an Elitist Disregard on the Right

I want to write only about science here (and I won't take any political comments), but I have found that I cannot. Suppressive, false dogmas are ascendant, not just among scientists, but among our political leaders. And the latter need to be addressed, and reined in from what has become, on one side at least, criminal activity at the highest level against the fundamental right of freedom of speech itself, which above all else allows us to call ourselves members of a free society.

This blog is primarily meant to inform the world of the results of my unprecedented research into the "ancient mysteries" of man on Earth, results which constitute the greatest scientific discovery in history: The deliberate re-formation of the Earth and solar system, less than 20,000 years ago, according to a great design that was meant to be discovered, when man's knowledge about his world grew enough to find and prove it for what it is. Those results indicate a new paradigm is needed for scientific investigation, across all of modern physical science (including physics itself, the most fundamental physical science), but especially in the earth and life sciences (whose central theories are, respectively, plate tectonics and--even more fundamental--undirected evolution of all that we observe on the Earth--this is the extended Darwinian paradigm). The Great Design of the "gods" which I found, and thoroughly verified, immediately disproves the fundamental assumption, against design, underlying the Darwinian paradigm, and thus also casts down all the theories that currently guide scientific research in every field, and which proceed from that false but religiously-held assumption.

That, readers, is where I am coming from; that is my world, my sure knowledge of the sure truth. Now here is the wider world: The Democratic Party platform calls for prosecuting global warming skeptics. With that official platform, the entire political Left is engaged in outright criminal conspiracy, in my view, based only on the blatant political lie, "the science is settled". It is NOT settled; it is totally incompetent, as I showed here, and here, and here, and here, and in other posts over the last 5 and 1/2 years (entirely on my own, I must add -- I don't need "Big Oil" to find the scientific truth, that consensus climate science is a false science).

The Democratic Platform Drafting Committee heeded the words of the notoriously incompetent climate scientist, Michael Mann, in their deliberations. He is quoted as telling them:

"Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output [which has been shown not to agree with reality--HDH] and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change....What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle."

That is either a bald-faced lie (he is, after all, referring to the WEATHER, and it is as it has always been, not "unprecedented"), or the cry of a deluded soul, committed to a lie, unable to face the real truth, that there is no valid climate science, and he has only been trying, all these years, to "tease out the signal of human-caused climate change" (and, quite apparently, cannot think outside of that benighted mindset, to see that there is only repeating, natural variability to be seen).

And, on the Republican side, famous political commentator George Will has just left the Republican party, in determined denial of Donald Trump. This is an insane escalation of the Conservative disgust with its own Republican Party, which got Obama re-elected in 2012 by refusing to vote Republican. "He cut off his nose to spite his face" comes to mind. I find the insanity has spread to both the Left and the Right. Only Trump, whatever you think of his character, Mr. Will and many others, shows any inclination to beat back that insanity. Only he shows any ability to recognize it AS insanity. And recognizing it as insanity is paramount now--otherwise it will only get worse.

No Getting Around It

The notrickszone site has a post debunking an AGW alarmist's theory about a slowdown in the Atlantic ocean circulation, to which I responded:

Yet this article (quoting from climatecentral.org) still says: "...greenhouse gas pollution causes ice sheets to melt, which prior research has shown is causing the circulation to slow overall."

So it doesn't even touch the core delusion, that there is a global-warming "greenhouse effect" and consequent global "climate change".

I also read a comment on the climate etc site of Judith Curry, by one of the many notorious defenders of the utterly false climate science (David Appell), reiterating that scientists have "shown" that the Sun can't be to blame for the "global warming", and that it must be CO2.

My short answer to everyone who believes in any part of the consensus climate science is

The Bottom Line About "Climate Science" and "Global Warming".

That evidence is patently clear, that there is no CO2 "greenhouse effect" at all, and further that it should not be surprising that climate scientists cannot explain their "global warming" as due to variability in the Sun's output, because THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS themselves are not to be trusted. Everybody, climate scientists included, uses 288K for the global mean surface temperature in their theories, in agreement with what the Standard Atmosphere says. Yet the Standard Atmosphere has "said" that for over a hundred years, and the global mean surface temperature "measured" today is LESS than 288K, by a few tenths of a degree, despite all the hysteria over a century of "global warming". My 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison--which I have claimed ever since to be the definitive correction to the utterly false climate science--precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere model, so there can be no doubt that the Standard Atmosphere describes the real atmosphere, on the global scale, and it demands no "global warming" has occurred from the time the Standard Atmosphere was developed all the way up to 1991, the time the Magellan spacecraft took the Venus data I used in my comparison.

Even some consensus scientists confirm, albeit unintentionally, my position on the lack of any proved global warming at all. I recently came across, and communicated in a comment on the jonova site, this 2014 admission from a European Space Agency scientist: "A widely reported 'pause' in global warming may be an artefact of scientists looking at the wrong data, says a climate scientist at the European Space Agency. Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that surface air temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as 'lousy'."

Yet that data is what is presented to the world, defended in every debate, and obsessed over, month after month, by both sides in the climate debate. Climate science is "lousy", ladies and gentlemen. Period.

When the dust clears, this generation will be swept into the dustbin of history for its vehement and condescending denial of the clear truth, that there is no valid climate science and no competent climate scientists today. After all this time, I would go further, and say there is no competent scientist throughout all of the earth and life sciences today--I have neither seen nor heard of any of them, whether alarmist or lukewarmer, accepting my Venus/Earth comparison as definitive, and its clear consequences for current climate science. There simply is no excuse for the rampant incompetence in science now, although there are clear reasons for it. I have explained the biggest reason on my blog, in the context of my own unprecedented scientific discoveries: The current scientific paradigm (which my discoveries replace) is failing, and has been failing from its inception. Science has chosen to nurture false dogma ever since Darwin, and almost completely so in the last half-century.

Responding to a Believer in False Science

I have just responded to a comment on the jonova site, from a skeptic who wanted to know how to respond to an AGW (anthropogenic global warming) believer, who claimed that skeptics "conflated natural with anthropogenic" factors in pointing out the infamous "global warming pause" since 1997, and so lacked mental acuity, or words to that effect. I responded by referring to a recent post of mine here:

To put it bluntly, you are dealing with a believer in current, politically correct dogma, sanctioned by an incompetent generation of scientists, who have worked for two generations to advance an utterly false climate science, and by all of our supposedly authoritative institutions, which have been suborned to that false science simply because they cannot imagine that so many scientists could be so wrong, or so evil in advancing false information to the world to protect their professional positions and income. You are not likely to get him or those who believe like him to change their minds by giving them either simple facts or convincing rhetoric. They muddy every argument that is brought before them.

However, in the context of proper attribution of global mean temperature variations to natural and anthropogenic factors, you could give them this link to a recent post of mine:

The Bottom Line About "Climate Science" and "Global Warming",

and point out that the false climate scientists have put out graphs to the public which basically blame all of the "global warming" on carbon dioxide (CO2), even though the temperature record shows no consistent temperature variation with increasing CO2. Even more astonishing, a century ago the global mean surface temperature, as indicated in the Standard Atmosphere model, was 288K, and after a century of supposed global warming the global temperature "measured" today is LESS than 288K, by a few tenths of a degree (and this, in the larger, and fundamental, context of the Standard Atmosphere having been precisely confirmed by my 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, so it's no use arguing that the Standard Atmosphere doesn't apply, because it obviously does, quite accurately, and precisely). So, not only can "climate science" not disentangle natural from anthropogenic (and clearly does not want to even acknowledge the natural), it cannot prove there has even been any "global" warming; it cannot prove, to anyone who has seen the Standard Atmosphere precisely confirmed by my Venus/Earth comparison, that it can even MEASURE the global mean surface temperature accurately enough to show any real global warming, from ANY combination of factors, both natural and anthropogenic.

The Greater Meaning of Deflategate for Science Today

The climateaudit site has a post on the "Deflategate controversy is due to scientist error" (about the claim that the Patriots football team was deflating their footballs to give themselves an edge in games). My response to Stephen McIntyre:

"Information for Colt balls reconcile almost exactly, but there is a discrepancy of about 0.38 psi for Patriot balls. This discrepancy is almost exactly equal to the bias of referee Anderson’s Logo Gauge (orange) – a coincidence that should alarm any analyst of this data."

It is the single greatest and most widespread error in all of modern science, across all fields, that "coincidence" is never questioned as an "explanation" when an unlikely finding is encountered that is contrary to expectations, or to the supposedly "settled science". Even your own calling it a "coincidence" buys into that science-wide error, though you are quick to realize a proper analysis would have homed in on it and realized it is too unlikely a finding to have been due to the mere chance the numbers would fall out as they do. Modern scientists have become increasingly insensitive to judging the probability of highly unlikely findings, and questioning them to find the real cause in each case. This has led to a crisis of incompetence across all the physical sciences, especially the earth and life sciences, which my research (finding and conclusively verifying what can only be called "the great design of the 'gods'"--the next paradigm in science) shows all need to be re-thought, wholesale.

Six Categories: A Lukewarmer's Biased Take on the Climate Debate

The masterresource site has a post on "six categories" of positions in the climate debate, according to Richard Mueller of UC Berkeley, who, the article says, should be an "important voice" in the debate. My response:

Bottom line: Mueller's categories are not valid, and he should not be "an important voice" for anyone looking for the truth. To say as he does that "warmists" stick to the science is a lie by omission, for they stick only to their "consensus" dogma, which has been shown, time and time again, to be utterly worthless. And his take on "deniers"--that as a group they "pay little attention to the details of the science"--is another lie; they are simply "skeptics" who have indeed studied the details presented by the "climate scientists", and over time have assured themselves that the warmists--both "alarmists" and "lukewarmers"--refuse to let go of their dogma long enough to realize that the consensus "climate science" is no such thing, is in fact completely counter to the observable facts. Mueller is worthless to anyone other than lukewarmers, who are trying to stake out their "reasonable middle" position as the only valid alternative to the alarmists. Politically, of course, that may seem reasonable, but it only kicks the chance for the scientific truth to be faced and accepted in this (or even the next) generation further into the future. The truth will out, but only those who know there is no valid climate science and no competent climate scientists today, are actually on the side of true science.

The article concludes with "reasonable" advice on governmental climate policy, but it too is worthless, for in the current rampant incompetence in science, there can be no rational "climate action". The "science"--much less the politics--simply cannot be trusted at this time.

Atmospheric CO2 and the Lapse Rate: No Effect

The notrickszone site has a post by a Japanese scientist that says CO2 "climate sensitivity" (defined as the temperature increase to be expected from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is currently overstated, even "meaningless", because increasing the CO2 would change the temperature "lapse rate" in the atmosphere. My response:

All scientists should know by now that my 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison already definitively showed there is no actual "CO2 global warming greenhouse effect".

Never mind doubling the CO2. The Venus atmosphere has over 2400 times the concentration of CO2 as does Earth's (that is 11.4 doublings of CO2, not just one doubling), without ANY effect upon the temperature at any given pressure level.

Further, since that Venus/Earth comparison precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere model for Earth's troposphere as the true, stable equilibrium state of the atmosphere, it also confirms the physics behind that model, which is just that of the hydrostatic condition, that the pressure at any level in the troposphere is just the weight of the atmosphere above that level. And since the hydrostatic condition provides that the lapse rate MUST BE just -g/c, where g is the acceleration due to gravity and c is the effective specific heat of the atmosphere, the lapse rate has ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to do with the CO2 level in the atmosphere (certainly not in the trace amounts found in Earth's atmosphere, and even between Earth's .04% and Venus's 96.5%, as the Venus/Earth comparison I performed showed).

I have yet to come across ANY "expert", like the above author, who knows what they are talking about. The Venus/Earth temperature comparison makes them all appear incompetent.

Science Is A Single Mind, Learning

The Notrickszone has a post on the trouble with peer review, and the following is my (by now habitual) response:

Ordinary people need to understand that there are basically two kinds of scientist when it comes to the peer-review process: 1) Principal Investigators, and 2) Everyone else, including a) Research Associates, who are simply employees, without tenure, who can be "terminated"--fired--without cause, and b)"expert" (a meaningless word these days) consultants from other fields or other institutions (also known as "pals", as in "pal review", get it?).

When the subject of peer review comes up these days, I trot out my 2003 letter on peer review to the OMB, when it requested feedback on peer review (see also all 2003 Public Comments on Peer Review that they received).

My bottom line, from experience: "peer review ... is a system akin to that of independent feudal lords or warring tribal chiefs", i.e., those "Principal Investigators" whose main concerns are keeping their research grant money coming in year after year, and being taken as the unquestioned authorities in their fields (which mainly requires they never allow even the possibility they could be wrong about the "settled science", as the "Emperor" must be peerless, in their own minds). As you can see, the fundamental mindset is that of "survival of the fittest and I must be the fittest"--and (LEARN THIS, people) that mindset (also known as "the struggle for scarce resources") is NOT the way to the TRUTH in science (despite what you may think you have learned "the hard way" in life). True science--uncovering the truth--is NOT a competition (or a social construct, as in "postnormal science" or even a "consensus"), in any way, shape or form. It is, fundamentally, a single mind, learning something true (cause and effect) about the world--period.

Incompetent Climate Science: Balancing Large, Opposing "Effects", All False

In the current insane atmosphere over supposed "global warming" -- due primarily to a long-nurtured, dogmatic incompetence in all the earth and life sciences, not just climate science (which explains why the wider science community has not, as a whole, been able to recognize and repudiate climate science's utter failure), and the "expert" incompetence elevated now to a political crisis of the first order, by an opportunistic, revolution-minded political party in power (so outrageous that I, a professionally and personally dispassionate physicist, know them as the Insane Left) -- the ordinary man or woman cannot know how really broken is our system, from the top down, and hence who to believe in the public "climate change" debate.

Given that largely unrecognized, yet revolutionary context, the following "boring" (to the non-scientist) calculations will, I am sure, not cause a ripple in the beliefs of most people, or in the actions now being implemented by their "leaders" (a laughable designation, I assure you, given the leaders' determined wrong-headedness regarding the physical truth about the "climate"). I will simply provide these few calculations, dispassionately and "for what its worth" (as one says when one doubts anyone is really listening).

My 2010 Venus/Earth comparison showed that there is no greenhouse effect, because only the difference in solar distances of the two planets is needed to explain the Venus/Earth atmospheric temperature ratio, despite Venus's almost pure--96.5%--carbon dioxide atmosphere compared to Earth's minuscule 0.04%. (Surprising as it may be to believers in the "greenhouse effect", this is quite precisely true, both above and below Venus's thick cloud cover; in fact, inside Venus's clouds, Venus's atmospheric temperature is SMALLER than expected by a constant few degrees, not larger as the "greenhouse effect" would make it). As I originally wrote in that 2010 report, and as I have continually claimed ever since, the precision with which the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is determined ONLY by their respective distances from the Sun, shows not only that there is no "greenhouse effect" observed on these two hugely differing planets, but their atmospheres must be warmed by incoming solar radiation, not by heat from the planets' surfaces as climate scientists assume and teach to each succeeding generation of students.

Let us see what would be the Venus/Earth temperature ratio if other physical conditions affected it. The major differences between Venus and Earth are in 1) the albedo, or fraction of incoming solar energy that is reflected rather than absorbed, and 2) the supposed "greenhouse effect". I have already mentioned how hugely Venus differs from the Earth in its atmospheric carbon dioxide level (96.5% vs. 0.04%). The difference in albedo is also large, some 70% of the incident solar energy in the case of Venus, vs. only 30% reflected by the Earth.

For simplicity, let the intensity of the incoming solar radiation at the Earth's distance from the Sun be one unit of intensity, and let the Earth-Sun distance be one unit of distance. The solar radiation varies with distance R from the Sun as 1 over R-squared. Venus's distance from the Sun is 0.724 of Earth's distance, so the incoming solar radiation at Venus is 1/(.724) squared, or 1.91 times the intensity of incoming solar radiation at Earth.

If only the strength of the incident solar energy mattered in determining the temperature, the Stefan-Boltzmann formula tells us the temperature must vary as the fourth-root of that incoming energy, so the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at any given pressure in the atmosphere, should be the fourth-root of 1.91, or 1.176. At 1 bar pressure, T_earth = 288K, so T_venus would be 1.176 x 288K = 339K. In fact, this is what is observed for the actual Venus temperature at 1 bar pressure in its atmosphere.

But how can we explain that observed fact, when we know that different fractions of the incoming solar radiation are actually absorbed in the two planetary systems, and also the "greenhouse effect" in Venus's atmosphere should be much, much larger than in Earth's. Venus has over 2400 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as does Earth; 96.5% is some 11.4 "doublings" of Earth's 0.04%. (Climate scientists use the concept of a "doubling" of the carbon dioxide in their pronouncements to the public; they express the atmospheric "climate sensitivity" as the temperature increase expected from a doubling of the carbon dioxide).

Consider first the supposed albedo effect upon the temperature:

At Earth, incident solar = 1 (our "standard unit"), and the albedo (reflected intensity) is 0.3, so

Absorbed solar, at Earth = 0.7

At Venus, incident solar = 1.91, and albedo is 0.7, so its absorbed intensity is 0.3 x 1.91 = 0.573, which = 0.819 of Earth's 0.7.

Thus, if the albedo, or the fraction actually absorbed by a planet-plus-atmosphere system, also mattered, its maximum effect, for the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, would give

T_venus/T_earth = fourth root of 0.819 = .951,

and for T_earth = 288K, T_venus = 274K,

Note this is much smaller than the observed value of 339K. So the "correction for albedo" imagined by consensus climate scientists is very large.

Now let's suppose there is also a "greenhouse effect" to be considered. It would have to offset the large albedo effect just calculated, i.e., provide a warming of at least 339K - 274K = 65K. This would require a CO2 climate sensitivity of almost 6K per doubling of CO2 (i.e., 65K/11.4 doublings = 5.7K per doubling.

No one claims such high values; the most alarmist of climate scientists themselves, and the UN IPCC, promulgate a value of 3K per doubling of CO2, while the "skeptics" generally tout a value around 1K per doubling of CO2.

The above calculations really add little to a competent scientist's understanding of my original Venus/Earth comparison (if any such scientist existed among the "authorities" one hears from these days). These calculations merely show that the only way to "explain" the observed Venus/Earth temperature ratio, within the consensus "albedo plus greenhouse effects" theory, is to massively play with the supposed CO2 "climate senitivity", in order to exactly balance two large and diametrically opposed "effects", so that they precisely add up to zero. In the real world, scientists know that this is very highly unlikely, basically impossible, when the two "effects" are physically independent of each other, as the albedo and carbon dioxide are. (The point is made even stronger when one considers that the "albedo effect" upon the temperature is a multiplicative one, while the "greenhouse effect" is an additive one, so that it requires a different CO2 climate sensitivity at each pressure level to zero the two "effects". Performing the above "albedo" calculation at the 200 mb pressure level, for example, T_earth = 211.6K, giving T_venus = .951 x 211.6K = 201.2K, which is only 45.9K less than the observed value of 247.1K, not 65K as at the 1 bar pressure; this would require a CO2 climate sensitivity of 45.9K/11.4, or 4K/doubling of CO2, in order to precisely balance the "albedo" and "greenhouse" effects at the 200 mb pressure level.) The real situation faced by consensus climate science is even worse than this, because in addition to the differences in albedo and carbon dioxide concentrations, Venus and Earth also differ in their planetary surfaces, with one all solid crust and the other 70% deep ocean. So consensus climate science is faced with the vain task of precisely balancing not just two, but three supposed "effects" upon the temperature (one of them additive while the other two are multiplicative), which "coincidentally" all zero out in order for only the solar distances to precisely and "coincidentally" explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio.

A competent scientist (that's me) knows better. A competent scientist knows, immediately from the precision of the Venus/Earth comparison, without needing to perform the explicit calculations above, that the atmosphere must be warmed only by incoming solar radiation, and so is not dependent, as the "greenhouse effect" is, upon a previously warmed planetary surface, nor upon any fraction of the Sun's radiation that is not directly absorbed by the atmosphere, including that which is reflected (hence, the albedo), by either clouds or the planetary surface.

On top of this simple scientific disproof of consensus climate science, of course, are the revelations of fraudulent adjustments to the world's temperature records, that fake global warming, and the hysterical claims, of imminent catastrophic "climate change", being made in the compliant media by environmental activists and "leaders" like U.S. President Obama, all of them committed not to the truth but to economic and political "transformation" of the world. They would make a new world order founded entirely upon lies.

Nobody Is Learning Anything, Even the Skeptics

Doubters of the "global warming" alarmism (driven as it is by incompetent and criminal "leaders" in both science and politics today--as they are, figuratively speaking, shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, when they know not only that they are deliberately trying to panic the world, but that there is no "fire", at all) need to begin to stand firm, not just against the alarmists, but also against the "lukewarmers" who make up the large majority of the critics of the alarmism. They misdirect their energies, and those of their followers (such as habitual readers of their blogs), by refusing to listen to those, like me, who have given them overwhelming evidence against even their lukewarm defense of the so-called "settled science" (basically, of the "greenhouse effect" as something capable of causing global warming). They are at pains not to rock the "settled science" boat, essentially, and in this they are just as incompetent as the alarmists (for there is no valid climate science, no global-warming greenhouse effect, and no competent climate scientists, as I have been informing those who would listen for 5 and 1/2 years now, using the definitive evidence I uncovered easily, as I insist any competent physicist can, and should already have done by now--most simply by listening to me, and taking the time to recognize the strength of my evidence).

In pursuing their agenda of defending the "settled science" even as they criticize its "exaggerations", "uncertainties" and political abuse (all skeptics agree about the political abuse), the lukewarmers continue to fill their blogs with essentially irrelevant chaff and worse. Judith Curry, a tenured professor, keeps putting forth posts on the "psychology" and "sociology" of the climate debate, and especially on governmental "climate policy", when she should know there can be no rational climate policy at all, in the current tattered intellectual and scientific climate of ignorance, incompetence, and raw, unthinking activism.

And Anthony Watts keeps putting up "straw men" for his readers to knock down as they like, as well as admiring posts of other "settled science", like Milankovitch theory and paleoclimatology, none of which is any more settled--any more correct, or even competent, in actual fact--than is "climate science" itself. Just today, Watts has a post titled "Study Claims Ancient Tectonic Activity Was Trigger For Ice Ages". His readers, predictably, lambast the assumption in the study that CO2 drives the "ice ages", so that the study is little more than empty speculation that the ancient tectonic activity drove down the CO2, causing catastrophic global cooling.

But, as I have informed him and any with ears to hear and eyes to see, for years, not only is there no CO2 "greenhouse effect", but there were no naturally-occurring "ice ages", nor was there any naturally-occurring "tectonic activity" responsible for moving the landmasses over the Earth to their present arrangement and shapes.

Instead, the Earth's surface was deliberately re-formed, to a precise pattern, as I proved in my 2009 post, "A Challenge to Earth Scientists", and several more in the "Challenge to Science" series here. It is a simple demonstration, that completely disproves any theory of chance "continental drift" responsible for the precise positions of the continents today, in a precise (and anciently referenced, as a dodecahedron) pattern. (As I noted in that post, the probability of chance placement of the world's landmasses is on the order of one in a million million--that is, one in 1,000,000,000,000. In other words, and to anyone who can look at the pattern and see how closely the landmasses conform to it--it is a certainty that the landmasses were deliberately moved to their present locations and orientations).

So "skeptics", you are missing out on the greater truth, in your own willingness to hew to the consensus speculations piled upon false assumptions that constitute all of today's earth and life sciences, not just climate science. And in the lukewarmers, you are heeding the wrong voices, if you want to know the overriding truth that now faces mankind, with its many divisive and false dogmas so long nurtured and so stubbornly promulgated, by those who are perhaps best known as jihadists, or religious warriors, of every stripe.