Friday, December 30, 2016

Political Change Does Not Affect the Underlying Scientific Incompetence

The election of Donald Trump should herald the dismemberment of the political alarmism over so-called global warming, but it does not begin to address the underlying problem, of gross incompetence in science today. As I have tried to inform everyone, there is no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists -- and the incompetence in climate science is just the tip of the iceberg in science today, across the board. I originally wrote the following comment for a Jo Nova post in October 2011 (this was before I began saving links, so I can't put one here). My comment was specifically in response to a statement that it is so hard to get people to listen to "climate skeptics", and critically question the alarmists, because "The key is that so many benefit from the status-quo...":

That explanation is far downstream from the real cause: Dogma in science--the dogma that the fundamental theories of today are established facts. Even climate consensus skeptics don't realize it is just as bad throughout the earth and life sciences. The problem is that you can't correct climate science without first showing where it fails; there are too many bringing forth alternative theories, when everyone first needs to agree on the obvious errors in consensus theory (in climate, that means the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the radiation transfer theory that has thoughtlessly defined a stable climate system as just the opposite, one balanced on a knife edge, that can be overwhelmed by 0.04% of a gas necessary for all the life on Earth). The earth and life sciences are riddled with fundamental errors, precisely due to the dogmatic, rather than evidential, nature of their underpinning assumptions. It is all speculation piled upon unsupported assumptions, in the very foundations where they remain unquestioned, and an essentially religious belief (i.e., a hotly defensive, emotionally biased belief, inculcated from youth in every school) is the life's blood that sustains the illusion throughout society, and at the highest levels of authority and responsibility. I see people criticising the climate consensus on the basis of the Milankovitch theory, not realizing the latter is just as wrong-headed as the former. I see skeptics calling critics of evolution theory names, and dismissing them, without realizing that they are acting just like the defenders of "runaway climate". The problem is incompetence in all of science today, due precisely to unquestioned belief in ideas that, fundamentally, are just as wrong-headed as those which Aristotle used to hold up the development of science for 2,000 years (and Darwin's idea--basically just against design in the natural world--has set science on a dead end street for the last 150 years). The climate science mess is just the latest, harshest eruption of the consequences of unquestioned and unsupported dogma in the foundations of modern science. Don't try to judge, from a position of ignorance. Be humble, and self-disciplined, and learn. That is the lesson for our time (or, more likely now, the lesson OF our time, for those who come after).


  1. " The problem is that you can't correct climate science without first showing where it fails; there are too many bringing forth alternative theories, when everyone first needs to agree on the obvious errors in consensus theory" It's getting to the point where every proposition is dominated by the need to refute the 'climate theory' instead of realizing we need to understand dynamic processes without being fixated on drivel. Otherwise the 'consensus crew' have succeeded in derailing investigation of natural phenomena regardless. Your comment on was about something I ceratinly have not found obvious - though undoubtedly correct. That would be the bankruptcy of ignoramuses acting as pundits about science. Have you made notes ?

    1. Good Morning, opit,

      The gross spectacle, presented to the public, of a consensus of alarmism (absolutely wrong-headed alarmism, I should say)--on the part of all of our supposedly most authoritative and trustworthy institutions, throughout our society, or civilization--is worthy of whole shelves of books, not just "notes". I could take my readers on a tour of my own personal revelations, in my first year of learning the climate debates, starting about 7 years ago. But I am not an investigative journalist, I am a scientist. I deal in getting at the physical truth about climate science, not the intellectually degenerate shenanigans of all those who cannot see the most obvious truth and WILL not even try. As I have written many times, I go for the simplest, most obvious evidence, to show anybody where the truth lies; I trust that as the truth does get out to more and more people, the flagrant disregard of it by the "ignoramuses" will become apparent to all.

      Naming names of those "ignoramuses" would seem at first a positive contribution to the public good, but it turns out the general scientific incompetence (which cannot even recognize a stable global temperature and the utterly simple physics behind it, much less any "dynamic processes") makes ignoramuses out of just about everybody, on every side of the debate/political war.

      Basically, I think everybody who promulgates the "consensus" climate science should be barred from science or any position having to do with telling the populace what science to believe. I wrote a comment on this on the jonova site just an hour or two ago.