Dealing With Criminal Authorities

Steven Goddard has come to the conclusion that the climate "debate" is no longer about science, and wonders how to deal with "criminals". My response:

You do what I have been doing for the last 3 years, ever since I definitively disproved the "greenhouse effect" with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (the scientific debate has been over ever since): You identify the Insane Left (and the subornation of all of our authoritative institutions by it) as the immediate problem--substituting as it does a political ideology, and outright tyranny, for science--and the underlying problem, that of a general incompetence among scientists, for letting climate science go so far wrong as to forget the Standard Atmosphere and the stable vertical temperature lapse rate structure of the troposphere. Beyond that, I can only recommend mass civil disobedience of any and all laws passed during the Obama years, particularly Obamacare and the anti-scientific EPA regulations (like officially denoting CO2 an "air pollutant", and thus subject to strict regulation under the Clean Air Act).

And you should prepare yourself mentally for increasing forays into governmental tyranny over individuals' rights--as more and more citizens fail financially--and for actual war (although that is most likely to occur when most of the Baby Boomers are dead).

When my greater discoveries are finally confronted and generally accepted, then our divisions will recede, people will start to really work together in a newly vibrant society, and real progress can be made, in science, religion and modern societies. For now, reason is taking a back seat to tribalism and past historical injustices, both real and imagined, and the world is pushing for war thereby.

No "Kind Regards" for the Pretend-Scientists Promulgating Anti-Scientific Tyranny in the Name of Science

Claes Johnson has posted an inquiry to one Hans Rosling, a high-profile climate alarmist in Sweden, and Rosling has responded with "answers" to Johnson's questions. My response follows:

Hans Rosling: I reject your "answers" as blatant political and ideological chaff, i.e., scientifically non-responsive, thus worthless. And since they ARE so clearly political chaff, it is also obvious you are not a scientist, at least not a competent and honest one. You are one of the Insane Left, relishing a position in which you can promulgate empty alarmism to the people of the world (blaming especially those in the more developed countries--by which you mean the West--again without evidence). You have well shown yourself ignorant of any definitive evidence supporting such alarmism, only a "consensus" you admit you are not competent to judge, and which you choose to accept blindly, or fraudulently, to the people of the world. This is one scientist who will never accept the likes of you as a true scientist, or a true voice for the people. You are nothing but a fellow-traveller of utopian tyranny over honest reason.

Where Science Went Wrong

Claes Johnson has a summary post on "quantum contradictions", and other instances of what he considers bad modern theories in science. The following is my response, basically agreeing with him that modern science has gone wrong:

"A magic theory that we all have to accept without understanding" is a good, but not, I believe, the best way to characterize these instances of bad--and fundamental--theories at the center of our physical sciences, because of course it is really only stating things from the deluded believer's point of view, a totally dark, unknowing and unquestioning point of view. I prefer to make specific, positive and definitive statements that clarify the true physicist's point of view, and give an immediate feel for just what is wrong in each theory: The length contraction and the increase in mass with velocity, in relativity theory, are both unphysical (they violate the conservation of matter, and mass cannot be, at the same time, both transformable into kinetic energy, yet increasing with it, as Dewey Larson pointed out); that every part of the universe is flying away from us, in big bang theory, is unphysical (in precisely the same way as the ancient belief that the universe revolves around the Earth is unphysical--infinite energy, strangely working to make us the, or a, center of the universe, is needed in both); the greenhouse effect in climate theory (which simply ignores the simple truth of "heat rises--flows upward--in the atmosphere") is unphysical; the repudiation of physical reality itself, in quantum mechanics theory, is unphysical, and illogical (as Einstein masterfully made perfectly clear, to me and no doubt to others, in his famous EPR analysis--no one has gone beyond that criticism of QM, to this day, in this physicist's view). I am a physicist, because I assert, as fundamental, "I think, therefore I am; I interact constantly with a physical world, therefore it exists; physical bodies and physical interactions are fundamentally real (not contingent upon my 'measuring' them, or knowing anything about them)." An arrow shot from a bow DOES reach the target, despite the pretentious irrationality of Zeno; a tree falling in the wilderness DOES make a sound; and we do NOT "create our own reality". We defy even the tiniest sliver of physical reality (bacteria, and viruses, for example) at our peril and our eventual, certain regret--I believe we are all here to learn precisely that, if nothing else. The physical world, and universe, were here before any of us were born, and will be here, working precisely the same, after we are gone. Everything physical was designed--that is what MY unprecedented research and unparalleled discovery, of the "Great Design of the gods", makes utterly clear, for the first time in history, to any competent mind, not just the spiritual-minded--and must work as it was designed to do, with conscious choice the only undetermined, yet fundamentally important, variable, and we humans, in particular, were made (designed) to learn that, in exquisite detail (to encompass the design with our minds, and honor it as the intentional, accomplished design it is). That is what, before Darwin, science was known to be (by men of the stature of Newton, at least): The study of the Design of the world, and universe.

The IPCC Must Go (February 2011)

Claes Johnson has a post on Judith Curry, who in the wake of the latest IPCC "report" has apparently called for its dissolution. I responded with the following comment:

Competent scientists knew this long ago. I wrote the following comment on MasterResource back on February 23, 2011:

I agree, the IPCC must go, if science -- not just climate science -- is to take back its credibility from political corrupton. But that is not enough, because the IPCC could not live and prosper without a general weakening of scientific competence, indeed without a raising of false dogma to the level of proof throughout science. Science must begin to regain its intellectual health by repudiating the incompetent scientists who enabled the IPCC, and who continue even now to ride the wave of false consensus that has ensnared all of our scientific institutions (NOAA, NASA, AAAS, APS, etc.), and the public media (including all of the peer-reviewed scientific publications). James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth -- all those who have continued to promulgate AGW in the face of overwhelming evidence against their poor science (including internet bloggers like "Eli Rabett", "ScienceofDoom", skepticalscience.com, realclimate.com, etc.), must be demonstrated to be wrong-headed, and ejected from science. I maintain the proper comparison of the temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth (as I have done, very simply, in "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect") is the key proof, and an amazing demonstration, of the general wrong-headedness of the climate "consensus". The last generation of students has been taught nonsense masqueraded as "settled science", and a whole new generation is being brainwashed with this dogma (the "greenhouse effect", based upon an incompetent "radiation balance theory" of climate) even now. Until the Venus/Earth data is dispassionately confronted, and admitted by all to be definitive against the current consensus, all scientists are incompetent. That is the unpalatable truth that must be faced.

The Venus/Earth comparison is here. A VERY simple understanding of it, for children and smugly dismissive "experts", is revealed here.

Bottom line: Judith Curry has been as incompetent, in her dismissal of the Venus/Earth definitive evidence--indeed, in her failure to have uncovered that definitive evidence herself, long ago--as every other climate scientist. Climate science has failed, and it is too late for this generation of climate scientists to save themselves.

Incompetent Skeptics IV: Dr. Judith Curry

The climate depot site has a link to a puff piece on Judith Curry and her views on climate change/global warming. The following is my response:

This is a puff piece, based entirely on a friendly, personal view of Dr. Judith Curry. But the climate change debate is not about any person, especially any academic who basically accepts the climate science as sound and, as they like to say in their own best interests, "settled". Those who have involved themselves in the debate--who have studied the science behind it, and the arguments about that science--are strung out over the full range, from complete acceptance of the academic science to complete rejection of it. A layperson must either choose an "authority" to believe in, blindly, or seek out the definitive facts that tell for or against climate science theory--for that is what they are getting from all sides, predigested theory presented, smoothly and easily, as fact.

I am a 65-year-old physicist by education and long experience, in the academic and high-tech industrial sectors, and in presenting my view to laypersons, I take the latter route, of uncovering the definitive facts that anyone can appreciate. I uncovered the definitive fact that disproves the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, and any need to worry about a "runaway global climate" at all, nearly 3 years ago, in November 2010 (see here).

When I found that definitive fact against the greenhouse effect, I knew the consensus climate science was not just wrong, it was in fact incompetent (for what I had done should have been done 20 years earlier, when the relevant data, on the atmospheric temperature and pressure profile of Venus, was obtained by the Magellan spacecraft. That it was not done at the time is a gross error by climate scientists at the time, and that it has been dismissed even after I pointed it out in November 2010 is a gross crime against all of science and the trust of the public that we scientists are both competent and honest.) In late November, when I first tried to inform Judith Curry and her blog readers of the definitive fact of the Venus/Earth temperature ratio--which depends only upon the two planets' distances from the Sun, and no additional "greenhouse effect" at all, despite Venus's atmosphere having over 2400 times the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide as does Earth's atmosphere (Venus 96.5%, to Earth's 0.04%)--the following telling exchange took place:

Judith Curry:

"whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible."

Harry Dale Huffman:

"The issue is whether they warm by absorbing incident solar radiation, or by absorbing secondary LW [longwave, i.e., infrared] radiation from the surface. I say the former, and there is no bouncing and amplifying of heat between the surface and the atmosphere."

In other words, I identified for her the mistaken belief she (and every other climate scientist) was nursing, that the atmosphere is warmed, on the global scale, from the surface, when in fact it is warmed, to its stable, equilibrium vertical temperature structure, by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation.

No climate scientist, including Judith Curry, has ever shown the slightest interest in or serious consideration of the fundamental corrections to climate science dogma that are provided by the definitive fact of the Venus/Earth temperature ratio. Yet any STUDENT of climate science could have done what I did, and seen what I saw.

So, as nice as Dr. Curry may be, she is--as is every other climate scientist or academic who defends the science behind the "global warming" scare--simply and unavoidably incompetent. And to put this in the proper context (because I know that charge of general incompetence among the "experts" sounds flamboyant and hyped to the unwary), I suggest the reader here also read the short article, "The System Is Broken: Incompetent Science and Insane Politics".

Modern Science Has Gone Wrong

I have posted the following response to a comment on my November 2010 Venus: No Greenhouse Effect article:

Good Morning, Astrobiology,

The proper statement, of fact not theory, is that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is determined only by the ratio of their distances from the Sun (in accordance with the fundamental physics that relates mean absorbed radiation intensity with attained temperature, at equilibrium), and nothing else. That fact has implications for the temperatures in the other planetary atmospheres, but of course it should not be expected to predict their temperatures; it is not a theory of planetary warming, it is a fact relating the Earth troposphere with an equivalent (in pressures) portion of the Venus atmosphere.

The easy, even lazy, answer to your first question is that when you say, "Venus is hotter than Mercury", you really mean the surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury, despite being much farther from the Sun--that ignores the atmosphere, of course (and that little detail of comparing at points of equal pressure in the atmosphere, which my comparison emphasized), and any hack will tell you the surface of Venus is hotter because it lies at the bottom of a deep, heavy, heat-retaining ocean of air, while the surface of Mercury is essentially bare to the near-absolute cold of space. (All of this is so obvious, I suspect your question is merely disengenuous--suspect so strongly, that I say so here for any interested reader to see. David Appell, a charlatan who pretends to be a competent PhD physicist, recently tried to comment on this site with the same incompetent point, that the Venus/Earth comparison does not work for the other planets. I wouldn't be at all surprised if your comment was an attempt to get by my denial of any further comments from him, as an unthinking, determinedly dismissive, disruptive influence. If you follow his lead, you won't get anywhere worthwhile--here, at least.)

I have always emphasized that I do not have a theory, only that definitive fact, which disproves the greenhouse effect of increasing atmospheric temperature (at any given pressure) with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (for Venus's atmosphere has over 2400 times the level of carbon dioxide as does Earth's atmosphere, yet it makes no difference in the temperature--and note, if there WERE such an effect, it would be ADDITIVE to Venus's temperatures, not multiplicative as the constant Venus/Earth temperature ratio implies).

To explain the temperatures in the atmospheres of the other planets would require a general theory of atmospheric warming. I do not feel the slightest need to bail out climate and atmospheric scientists from their responsibility to produce such a theory--which MUST EXPLAIN the Venus/Earth result quantitatively and precisely, note. I have done some comparisons of the troposphere of Earth with the equivalent parts of the other planetary atmospheres, as I have said in earlier responses to earlier comments here, but nothing as definitive as the Venus/Earth result emerged from that preliminary work, and I am interested only in communicating definitive results--facts, not theory.

All of the earth and life sciences are now working with fundamentally false theories, to a lesser or greater extent. That is the larger point, that has emerged from my own research, with my discovery of a great world-encompassing design at the very beginning of mankind's intellectual history, and motivating every aspect of its development. Random cosmic events and undirected geological and biological processes are not the truth about Earth's origin and development. The Earth and solar system were subjected to deliberate wholesale reformation, to impose an overall design--and modern science has, thus, gone wrong.

The True Situation in Climate Science

I have submitted the following comment at Steven Goddard's Real Science site, where another commenter noted that he had only just noticed a change in the "Earth Energy Budget" diagram put out by NASA et al., no longer showing "back radiation":

They changed the diagram because it was so obviously ridiculous, as only I, so far as I am aware, first strongly pointed out in 2010, here. But they never changed their theory -- not just the "greenhouse effect", but the underlying, radiation transfer theory (which is basically just a simple-minded "light extinction" model, of light extinction in passing through a nearly transparent medium), which is also clearly wrong, because it ignores conduction and convection, and reverses the real physics, making the temperature the effect of radiative transfer, instead of acknowledging that the supposed radiative transfer is due to the fixed temperature structure of the atmosphere. The definitive evidence remains my Venus/Earth comparison, which disproved the greenhouse effect, precisely confirmed the stable Standard Atmosphere model for the troposphere, showed that the atmosphere is warmed, not from the surface but by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, and should have opened everyone's eyes to the fact that radiative transfer--within the atmosphere, and between the surface and atmosphere-- is the wrong way to approach the problem of atmospheric warming. Dr. Johnson (cf, Richard Fowler's comment above) gets caught up in theoretical radiative transfer arguments, that boil down to "heat goes from warm to cold regions", when the simple truth of the atmosphere is that the vertical temperature distribution of the troposphere has nothing to do with radiative transfer (which is just one of the three ways heat is transferred, after all--the other two basically ignored in the consensus theory) but is provided by the hydrostatic condition of the atmosphere, which imposes the well-known temperature lapse rate structure, defined by the Standard Atmosphere model. That structure is stable and predominates over all other conditions, globally, in the atmosphere, including night and day (wind and weather are essentially local and transient variations in the underlying stable structure). Until this basic understanding is learned and accepted by climate scientists, there will be no correction, and no progress, in climate science.