Sunday, October 17, 2010

Runaway Global Warming is Scientific Hysteria

The finding of the great design of the "gods" immediately confronts science with the fact that our most popular and hotly-defended theories in the earth and life sciences are fundamentally wrong. Plate tectonics is laughably wrong, since the landmasses of the Earth are shaped and distributed according to a clear and precise, dodecahedral design; evolution is not even a theory, it is a misplaced metaphysical principle of human learning, wrongly applied to physical reality because scientists refuse to recognize design as design, or to believe anyone smarter than us once trod the Earth.

The intellectual climate today is so bad, however, that no one in science is interested in learning fundamental new knowledge. Learning a scientific specialty is hard--the hardest part is memorizing a lot of terms, and keeping their essential relationships clear in the face of complex, deteriorating arguments. For example, no biologist I am aware of knows any more that "evolution" properly means "change in a given direction"; they are too full of the supposed success of undirected evolution.

The point I am getting to is that when science gets off track, there are always clues, perhaps small but clear, that it is off track. When it is really wrong-headed, as it has become since Darwin's day, you can find instances of blatantly ridiculous results being promulgated as the best science consensus. The prime example of this at the moment is the global warming controversy.

I have not addressed global warming in an article before now, because I don't fancy myself a universal polymath: Climate science is not my field. So I won't bother putting up yet another article that supposedly sets everyone straight on climate science, or global warming in particular. If you study the many different points of view presented online, from qualified scientists, you should find that climate science is, in fact, not a robust science. It is mired in fundamental controversies and incompetence, and poisoned beyond immediate cure by one-sided politicization that fans hysteria among the unknowing public.

What I will do is put before you just one example of a ridiculous result from climate science that I, as a physical scientist, have observed, and which I have not seen other scientific critics bear down on as they should. I think, indeed, that they don't know that it is ridiculous, and I don't know yet whether that thought is a misapprehension on my part, or scientists in general have been rendered simply stupid by the wrong-headedness of their general paradigm, of undirected evolution of all that we see in the universe--not just the life on Earth, but the Earth itself, for example (and of course, the solar system beyond, which I have proved to my own professional satisfaction is part of the great design I found and verified).

Here it is, the little point of ridiculousness I currently marvel over: The "atmospheric greenhouse effect" at the heart of the bad science put out by the "consensus", touted by the United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), is summarized in the following illustration, of the supposed "energy budget" of the Earth's surface and atmosphere:

Earth's Energy Budget, from Trenberth and Kiehl, 1997

This illustration purports to show how the initial power incident on the Earth from the Sun is divided among the many processes going on in the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. It all looks straightforward enough, but then when you look closely you see something strange, off on the right side: The radiation coming off the surface is huge, and there is an almost equally huge "back radiation" from the atmosphere to the surface. To a physicist--or at least to this physicist--that strange, gigantic loop of energy between the atmosphere and the surface appears unphysical, out of all proportion to the rest of the diagram.

And we don't have to get into detailed physical theory or wordy explanations to pin down what's wrong with it: The power coming off the surface (the number 390) is larger than the incident power from the Sun (342). (The power shown as “back radiated” by the atmosphere is about as large as that from the Sun, too.)

Just that one fact is enough for me to see that the "climate science" of the U.N. and the consensus of (so we are told) 97% of all climate scientists--is absurd. No part of the "global energy budget" can be greater than the incident energy. Either their numbers are wrong, or the model being illustrated is wrong. Period, full stop. You don't have to know, or explain to the world, what is really going on, or why there has been recent "global warming". Just know their explanation is nonsense, basic physics absolutely and undeniably forbids it. Everything else you read is either other scientists trying to show they know what is really going on (which obviously no one does at this point, entirely), or scientists or their followers trying to defend the indefensible, with complex, technical and always wrong-headed arguments.

Of course, that unphysical loop of excess energy is just what they are calling the "greenhouse effect". And it is garbage, and all the scientists who deny that, or refuse to see it for what it is, should be drummed out of science, or at least be required to undergo re-education. Because they are worse than first-year students, who are generally at least open to learning the hard truth.

I am more concerned with the new knowledge I have found, however, and how it relates to the current incompetence across all of science. The harder I have tried to put forward my new knowledge, the more widespread and confrontational has been the public exhibition of epidemic incompetence in science. I know, as a fact, that the Earth was deliberately put together, in exquisite detail, and that it was changed, wholesale but not fundamentally, less than 20,000 years ago. I know the logical hysteria to which so many scientists have been driven by their wrong-headed paradigm, is what we are seeing in the promulgation of "runaway climate change". This same hysteria is behind the closed-minded defense of current theories, and the simplistic and relentless presentation of them to the public as facts, across all the physical sciences. Through such hysteria and continual, vain argument, dogma is being revealed to mankind as merely divisive, and like sand, upon which true and lasting knowledge cannot be built.


  1. Hi..

    I don't know if this is new information since it's almost impossible to follow the whole AGW thing for ordinary people. But if climate research don't follow the energy laws than it's big news.

    If it is I would recommend that you contact and get you article posted there since it has a very far reach in the climate debate.

  2. Hello, Be. I fully understand what you mean by "ordinary people" trying to follow the whole AGW debate. That's the reason I write on the internet, to bring forth simple but accurate scientific observations of great import, for ordinary people. Simplify, simplify, is my guiding thought.

    This post is not new information, but I have only seen it positively, and forcibly, stated by one other person, as I have stated it, on one other web page so far, and that was in a forum environment in which the main responder refused to accept it, and vented at great length, pretending to superior scientific knowledge. The internet is full of scientific pretenders, who regurgitate the faulty scientific "consensus" no matter how basic, how simple, how clear the criticism. Their belief amounts to a religious belief, as others have noted. The ancient Greeks failed to inaugurate a true science because they mixed religious belief with reason, as did the medieval religious scholars, who argued cogently over such questions as how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, or how many levels of heaven, or levels of Being, there were. Science rose out of the realization that religious dogma was no sure guide to physical phenomena, but it has now come full circle, having fallen into its own dogma against deliberate design of the natural world.

    I will keep my mind and eyes open to writing about this on a wider stage, but frankly I have posted comments on a few forums, and gotten nowhere. The scientific "consensus" may be likened to Islamic jihadists--they live only to spout their beliefs as the sacred truth, and judge and dismiss "unbelievers" harshly. I would like my readers, then, to understand that mankind is being presented with a spiritual test of the widest, deepest, and critical, importance.

  3. I own a copy of Plato's 'The trail of Sokrates', one of my big heroes, and understand what you mean about ancient greeces incapability to embrace scientific values. And I guess we both find it strange how modern climate science finds itself in in the same situation today in contrast to what we all have learned from science history. Science has always been full of disagreement, but the way it's been handled this time is a shame to earlier debates where integrity and a respectful rhetoric of arguments was the underlying foundation. I like to use the example of the debate between the steady state and big bang theories that was debated for many years. In my knowledge the debate never lost it's grounding in the scientific principle even when it touched on peoples entire world view. And it was definitely not resolved by any consensus.

    If you as a scientist would like to enter the bigger stage in the climate debate there is a community of scientific skeptics that do have an impact. I don't mean or any of the political sites but sites like and I don't know if you already knew that but the reason I say that is because I found your article becauce I have an google alert search on IPCC on my netvibes homepage. And that we're fighting the argument of anti-science from the hysterics.

  4. Well, as I said before, I am not a climate scientist; I only comment on science outside of my discoveries when I can provide a wider perspective that allows one to see the basic principles in clearer focus, as simply as possible. Climate science is not the only field of human interaction where true debate is suppressed by one or both sides, and basic principles are wrong-headedly dismissed in favor of the current dogma, or unquestionable "consensus". And though this sad state of affairs has been accelerating in recent years, in my experience, it is not new. There was a wide-ranging, sudden collapse of open-minded debate in a number of fundamental sciences apparent to me around 1978 to 1981. The "Big Bang" debate was never settled, in my opinion, and there was suppression through improper neglect, as of the work of Halton Arp, which is an open wound upon scientific discourse (in astronomy) to this day. These more recent suppressions, however, including especially my own revolutionary findings, which blow the whole facade open, all follow upon the development of the undirected evolution paradigm, and what one may call the materialistic scientism, that denies any reality but the physical universe, along with any overriding, a priori meaning to it all. So much of modern science is simply a derailment from good and sufficient reasoning, and honest humility in the face of one's manifest ignorance.

  5. "...Plate tectonics is laughably wrong, since the landmasses of the Earth are shaped and distributed according to a clear and precise, dodecahedral design..."

    Some more support to your conjecture from the WMAP mission data...

    "...cosmologists in France and the US are now suggesting that space could be finite and shaped like a dodecahedron..."

    The data from the higher resolution Planck HFI mission is nearly in, so perhaps we will have an answer for the probable shape of the universe sometime later this year.

    As an aside, it is also interesting to remember that back in the late 1500's Kepler published the Mysterium Cosmographicum, in which he related the orbits of the first 6 planets of the solar system to the platonic solids. It is perhaps no coincidence that around Earth's orbit, Kepler circumscribes a perfect dodecahedron and the sphere containing this is Mars' orbit. Similarly, around Mars' sphere, a tetrahedron is circumscribed and the sphere containing this is Jupiter's orbit. Perhaps it would be worthwhile looking for features on the surface of Mars which follow the lines of a tetrahedron, as per your findings for a dodecahedral surface aligned Earth?

    As above, so below.

  6. Good Afternoon, Garlo,

    I appreciate your positive feedback, but I would be remiss if I didn't correct you in your belief that I have offered a mere "conjecture" about the dodecahedral arrangement in the landmasses on Earth. It is a clear fact, as I showed most simply in my "Challenge to Earth Scientists" post, and just one aspect of the Great Design I found. In fact, a proper response to your comment here requires a separate post on this topic, as it is too important to be relegated to a mere response among the comments here.

  7. Ha! Not but a few hours ago, Bob Tisdale posted the Earths energy budget on WUWT and followed it with an essay discussing it. I commented on the EXACT section of the graph (the right hand corner) and told him he wasn't worthy of being a bookkeeper much less a scientist, because if those figures were describing money in a bank account instead of energy of a planet, he would be arrested!
    Truly, knowledge is universal to any with their eyes open!

  8. "Money in a bank account" is a good analogy; congratulations. I respect Bob Tisdale's work, but I admit he has been too close to the ocean data--properly and consistently recognizing the poor data analyses of the consensus scientists, note--to pay sufficient attention to the real incompetence of the consensus-touting climate scientists ("not seeing the forest for the trees", in other words). To be fair, I use a broader brush, that fits everyone: There is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists.