Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Why There Is No True Debate, and a False Consensus

The wattsupwiththat site has a post on the need for debate, not consensus, over climate change, to which I have responded:

The problem is, the POLITICAL debate is well advanced, but the SCIENTIFIC debate is non-existent, because: Nobody knows the fundamental science they are pretending to know, or deluding themselves that they know. There are no competent climate scientists. Neither the "alarmist" nor the "lukewarm" believers in the greenhouse effect--of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (not "the temperature with, vs. without, an atmosphere", you proud fools)--know the first thing about what the evidence is telling you: that there is no such greenhouse effect, and your belief in it only marks your own scientific incompetence. There should be no public debate on the science, first and foremost because the public is not educated to competently participate, and now it should be clear (but of course it is not, which is the main point) that even the "experts" are miseducated, and clinging to failed theoretical dogma (so the dismal truth is, "climate science" is not ready for prime time--after the last 40 to 50 years of imbibed false theory). These statements are the real point of departure for any reasonable debate (which should be entirely open to the lay public, but without its participation, AND without the participation of climate scientists, who have universally failed in their professional responsibility--hand it over to non-climate scientists--preferrably physicists over the age of 60, educated before the dogma of the "greenhouse effect" was accepted as "settled science"--and anyone who respects the stable Standard Atmosphere over the hysterical "meme" of runaway climate change. And given the stillborn state of the scientific debate, cancel all governmental "climate" policies, forthwith--cease and desist now, or yesterday if possible.


  1. Here I disagree with you. The "Lay people" are the ONLY ones competent to debate this issue with the "experts". I would choose me over you any day to debate this with a Climatolgist. Why? Because when you debunk an expert, you are seen as just another expert. Which one should they "trust". When I do it, I show people that it's not hard to understand, that they too can understand and that they have been tricked by con men posing as experts.
    You are useful to me as someone whom I can get finer details from, but you can never compete with me on the ability to break the spell. The only people who could are children, the younger the better. The story of the Kings new clothes illustrates this perfectly!

  2. I think you mean that lay people are more competent to debate with the "experts", IN FRONT OF an audience of lay people. ("Which one should they trust?", you ask.) As a general proposition, I think that's questionable, but I don't see any point in arguing; I will just remind readers that I don't present myself as an "expert" (in climate science), but as a competent physicist, and it should also be obvious I am not a lay person, either. And right now, there is the little problem of the debate being really just political chaff, i.e. lying, which is what the lay audience is being served by the climate alarmists, quite outside of any real debate. Who is better able to say, "You are lying, you supposed expert you."? No need for us to compete for the title in that regard.