Standing Together: Sooner Would Have Been Better (But Still Is)

Jo Nova has a post on an "emergency meeting" this month of world leaders, apparently meant to make "backroom" deals among them in advance of the December "climate change" (a.k.a. global warming) conference. Jo commented that climate "skeptics" need to "stand together", a remark that seemed to me likely to have little effect--which would be unfortunate. My response:

The point is, there are too many "lukewarmers" and too few "deniers" (or, like me, defiers, though that means little since I have no influence on my own). The "greenhouse effect" should never have been taken seriously in climate science; it should have been laughed off the stage while still being bandied about by a few scientists, only at scientific gatherings, and never been allowed to metastasize into the public consciousness as an hysterical "meme", or sacred "scientific" commandment. You are all going to have to "stand together" with my kind, not me with yours, lukewarmers -- and that means showing some competence first of all in the DEFINITIVE evidence against the "consensus". Do not accept the "greenhouse effect", nor the "radiation transfer" theory with its "blackbody Earth", AT ALL. No more "radiative forcings"! Ban the use of "W/m^2" talking points, period, unless and until you can use them to explain, fully and precisely, why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is due only to the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun (very precisely so, outside of the cloud region on Venus). And you will never be able to do that; the radiative transfer theory is simply wrong, because it takes the temperature in the atmosphere to be due to radiative transfer, and thus reverses the true cause and effect in the real, essentially hydrostatic atmosphere (whose set vertical temperature structure--the constant lapse rate structure--rules over all, especially the LW radiation "measurements").

A Good Climate Policy: You Can't Get There From Here

Climate Etc has another post featuring sociologists/psychologists, "Against Consensus Messaging", where a commenter made the ridiculou claim that "consensus is an important part of the scientific method." My response to that comment, and to the blog's host, Dr. Judith Curry:

The scientific method only encompasses the discovery and objective verification of truth--a true understanding of a thing, a system or a process. Consensus is just a collective opinion about a thing, and has only a potential, tangential relation to the scientific method, a potential that is not realized unless the consensus opinion reflects the objective truth discovered and verified by the scientific method. Consensus is not "an important part of the scientific method", it does not in fact have any value in and of itself; it is, at best, only worthwhile to the extent it reflects the truth. That is why, as we now see everyday, even a consensus of authoritative experts, even of "97% of everybody", is worthless today--because the experts are all incompetent, before definitive evidence against their supposed understanding.

And blogs like this, addicted to sociological misdirections, away from the objective truth into the mire of mere opinion (collective or otherwise), merely thrash around in the mire, going nowhere and helping not at all (or only to the extent that they show just how incompetent the experts, like Dr. Curry, all are now).

Or to put it bluntly, sociology and psychology cannot enlighten physics, or any physical science. Dr. Curry needs to learn that her pursuit of good climate policy marks her as fundamentally deluded, because there is no such thing. "You can't get there from here", because there is no "here" here, where you continue vainly to focus your attention on opinion-making.

But I have been saying as much for about 5 years now, so I know you who feel yourselves to be part of a working system--a working scientific method, above all--are not heeding the evidence to the contrary (ironically, the sociological and psychological evidence, of the benighted and dysfunctional public and political debate).

It Is Fraud, Not Climate Science At All

The masterresource site, among many other blogs, has addressed the new claim that there is really no "global warmng pause" (over the last two decades) to counter the mentally unhinged political narrative (of Barack Obama) of imminent runaway "climate change". My response:

The whole "debate" is laughably incompetent (and has been for 25 years--since the inception of the UN's IPCC, it should be emphasized). All of these "experts" fall far short of competence by not demanding the immediate firing of Karl (et al.) for deliberate deception--fraud, that is--and the immediate rescinding of any and all regulations falling under the general heading of "climate policy". Earth's "climate" varies internally (over the globe, you see) from tropical to polar, but the global average (as referenced by the global mean surface temperature) is unchanging, as the century-old Standard Atmosphere model of the atmosphere implies, and that model is precisely--precisely--confirmed by the simple comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Earth (with .04% CO2) and Venus (with a whopping 96.5%). There is no discernible global warming greenhouse effect, a simple fact that no "expert"--or politician--will truthfully admit.

The proper lesson of the present debate, over Karl et al., is that the data used to calculate the global mean surface temperature (GMST) by today's climate scientists is too noisy (naturally varying and uncertainly measured) to support any claim of global warming at all, and it has to be tortured--fraudulently, to any truly competent physical scientist--to do so. That's what the man on the street should be hearing from any so-called "expert".

War, Or Enlightenment: The Only Option

The climaterealists site has a post by James Delingpole, wherein he seriously asks what can be done about President Obama's lies about "climate change" (in quotes, because it is just a false idea, not a reality). The following is my response (with an added phrase or two at the end, to the comment as I submitted it):

The leaders and movers in the world act like they are playing an involved game of chess, but one in which pieces are never removed from play (the major pieces just move around in their own spot, the pawns are replaceable), so the King can always believe he is winning. The reasons appear to be because nations can really only attack one another through open war, economic sanctions, or psychological attacks. As long as the first, open war, is avoided, the strange chess game goes on and on, with ever increasing delusion on all sides. But that game, which the world is in now, is strictly limited in time, it cannot be sustained forever, or for long--two or three generations, perhaps, at most. Then real war must break out, and the game board reset.

Casting Off Fearful and Hateful Dogmas is the Key

The side Obama is on (and the "climate change" believers...and the academic scientists in general) is thoroughly deluded by dogma; I have, for the last 3 years, known them as The Insane Left. Conservatives seem on the surface to be less deluded, but childish in their slavish adherence to their dogma. And underneath all, what drives the whole game, towards its only possible, inevitable outcome, is the belief in "survival of the fittest in a world of limited resources" (so only the biggest players were helped in the infamous "bailout stimulus", those "too big to fail"). If you don't really provide, on a more or less continuous basis, for the individual over the corporation or state, then you eventually come to being FORCED to bail out even the biggest of the big, to keep the game going. Education was supposed to be the continuing help for individuals, but the rigor-mortis of long-uncorrected dogma has slowly been choking the life out of that "path to success", so that path is an uncertain one, through a swamp of societal delusions and exclusionary beliefs in the real world.

Obama is just the tail end of a long, sorry degeneration, of the whole world (because he fundamentally evinces, not the beliefs of the country he now "leads"--much as Nero "led" Rome--but beliefs held in the East, having lived as a child in Indonesia, and raised the half black/half-orphan of radical activists). And so I see war coming: With the Insane Left in the US, and the wider East-West delusions--midwifed by global, yet myopic, business developments--that are causing the East to believe "it is our turn to rule now", there is real, political war here, and the stage is being set for World War III on the wider stage.

Yet after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the atom bomb has never been used to attack another country. Men can collectively decide, as the imaginary Captain Kirk famously once noted, "We will not kill TODAY!"--on a daily basis, if need be. We can also collectively and individually decide, "We will not judge AGAINST one another, solely on the basis of the past, nor on the basis of received authority from the past--on the basis of dogma". The key is, and always has been, the Golden Rule, which is NOT "Do unto others as they have done to you" (which is the way of the mentally stunted jihadist, essentially bound to the past), and not "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" (which is the secular humanists' childish rewrite of the everlasting rule among men) but "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In other words (and a hat-tip to Jesus of Nazareth) "Love one another as you love your selves" (and if that sounds too sugary to you, understand "love" as, "respect, way down deep, where it counts, and in all your actions").