"There's No Money in the Pot for Climate Skeptics"

Steven Goddard has a post whose comments quickly turned into a discussion of the trials and tribulations of those of us who deny the popular, but tyrannical and false, climate consensus. I submitted the following comment:

I have gone down a different path than anyone, and don't really fit in anywhere any more. My epochal discoveries, coming outside of any professional paid employment or institutional framework, open the door to the next scientific paradigm--overturning the "undirected physical evolution" paradigm under which all the earth and life sciences now operate--but they require the fundamental re-thinking of every current theory of the origin and development of our world. I know, as no one else does, that there are no scientific experts any more. Who could believe that, if they hadn't done the hard research and found it for themselves? The answer, I have found over the last 10 years, is almost no one--certainly no academics, or happily-employed fellow scientists. (My own circumstances are, unsurprisingly, most limited, and dangerously precarious now--but I can only tell the truth, whether anyone wants to buy it or not.)

(I have changed the next sentence from the original comment I submitted, to improve the clarity of the idea I am trying to express:)

There is a growing general incompetence of scientists, and dogmatic denial of any correction, as never before, just at the time I am trying to make known revolutionary new knowledge about the origins of man on Earth. Of course, that is far too great a coincidence for the two to be unconnected. So, by the very recalcitrance of scientists to my claims and the veritable avalanche of incompetence I am seeing, in such fields as climate science, I also know mankind is being tested, as never before, by old dogmas that go all the way back to those hidden origins (and cannot be defeated without a knowledge of those quite specific, quite precise origins)--dogmas that originated in the Great Design of the "gods" (for, again, who could believe that the earliest creation myths and a world of ancient religious obsessions and pronouncements, of seemingly insane "sacred truths", were the misunderstood shards of knowledge of the Great Design--who but me, who verified that design through the smallest, and precise, details of those ancient obsessions, those undying traditions cast as "tall tales" of myth?)

The Necessary Correction of Climate Science Is Still Far Away

Update 10 March, 2012: I have realized that my claim here, that the blackbody temperature of the Earth-plus-Atmosphere system is 279K, is wrong, and have posted on this at "My Own Blackbody Error". That claim should no longer be taken to be my scientific position.

The following is an updated version of my comment submitted in response to the latest John O'Sullivan post, at climaterealists.com:

Lay readers need to know they are being fed incompetent science by all sides of this "climate science war". For example:

The article states: "Climate scientists then commit a very grave error in the numbers: they equate the energy flux density of the incoming power to that of the outgoing power (not a requirement of the Law of Conservation of Energy (LCE))."

The scientific truth is, equating incoming and outgoing power IS a fundamental requirement. The consensus merely does it at the wrong place--the surface of the Earth--rather than beyond the atmosphere, where the requirement is "radiation in equals radiation out", which is what the ruling Stefan-Boltzmann formula specifies (but the current generation of scientists, both consensus and skeptic, refuse to adhere to that).

Both sides are ignoring the truly definitive evidence, that not only disproves the greenhouse effect (as correctly stated, and as understood by any interested layperson--of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide), but corrects a whole handful of basic mistakes common to both sides in the debate, and which is the necessary starting point for a re-examination of climate science.

See "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" and "The True Energy Balance of the Earth+Atmosphere".

The scandal is, both sides feel smugly free to ignore the need to fundamentally correct climate science, they all think it is just the "other guys" that are wrong, yet they both pay heed to the same false, and thus misleading, concepts (such as, that the radiating temperature of the Earth-plus-atmosphere system is 255K, or more telling, that peer-reviewed literature--and nothing else--is verified correct science; the true radiating temperature is 279K, and only hard facts verify scientific theory, not a few anonymous reviewers subject to conflicting interests and blind, dogmatic prejudices, instead of to the simple physical truth and the integrity of science). The whole situation is insane, to any competent physical scientist, and laypersons should not be taken in by any of it. Just remember that the direct comparison of the temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is the definitive evidence that disproves the consensus, and fundamentally corrects current, entrenched, mistaken beliefs among the scientists on both sides.

Sunshine and Fair Weather Skeptics

The Bishop Hill site today asks why persons in authority talk about healthy scientific skepticism, but deny its applicability to the climate science, a.k.a. global warming, debate. I submitted the following answer:

Nobody wants to hear it, but the reason is because DOGMA--received, rather than reasoned, belief--is ascendant in the world today. Science, it was once hoped, would counter the old dogmas, and so it did, but only so long as it didn't become addicted to dogma itself (and it never wiped out the endemic dogmas of established religions, superstitions, and ethnic traditions, whose dogmas continue to pound relentlessly upon the shores of reason and civil society). But with Darwin (yes, and denying it doesn't make it less true, in the final analysis), science made a fundamental error, cut off a whole line of valid reasoning about this strange and wonderful world--that it was in fact subjected to wholesale, intentional design, as my epochal research has uncovered for science--and has increasingly become mired in dogma, over sound (air-tight) logic, and sound experimental discovery and verification. A broad and deep, entrenched incompetence in science has been the result. Science has become just another part of the problem of Man on Earth, trying to learn how to treat, and how to live with, others of different beliefs.

As the discoverer of unprecedented new knowledge about the origin of the world as we find it today, I can only keep harping on the need to FOCUS, upon the DEFINITIVE FACTS that alone can correct current false theories. I have discovered, and verified, the definitive facts for correcting climate science (see my climate science posts, such as "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect"), but the world community of scientists needs to focus upon them, and accept them, in order to recover a competent climate science.

And the whole paradigm, of blind, undirected "evolution" of the Earth, and all the life on it, needs to be let go, because there is new knowledge, correcting both science and religion, waiting to be acknowledged, studied, and accepted by all. If you are not ready to hear that, you are part of the problem, that vexes us all.