Friday, December 21, 2018

Climate According to Weathermen

I don't feel there is anything of scientific value (other than as illustration of scientific incompetence of the "experts", and mass delusion on the part of the public) in the ongoing political climate debates, but in the interest of informing the many who still do not understand the most basic underpinnings of the debate (or war), I have made the following response, on the American Thinker site, to an article on statements about climate change made by TV weatherman Al Roker:

Roker is a purveyor of weather on TV, a performer and entertainer. A weather propagandist, if you will. He is like the weathermen on the Weather Channel, who you can watch present the weather -- around the nation, and even around the world -- in a hyped, overwrought or biasedly enthusiastic manner, ever hour of every day.

If you want to have a serious discussion of climate, climate change, or global warming, start with this: Weather changes, all the time. Climate does not, and global climate -- as represented by the only measurement of it that scientists have, or communicate, the global mean surface temperature -- changes least of all. "Global climate" does not change at all; the global temperature record(s) that purport to show that it does change have all been shown to be inadequate at best and fraudulent at worst. See, for example:

US Temperatures Have Been Fraudulently Adjusted

Weathermen, and climate scientists as well, think they can predict the climate by following the weather, for they have been mis-educated to think, simplistically, that "climate is just the long-term average of weather". As silly as it may sound to anyone with common sense, climate models are an attempt to predict climate change by using weather models, simplistically extrapolated far beyond their effective range in time and space.

The reality is that climate is the unchanging stage, while weather is the coming and going of transient players upon the stage. This is approximately so even for regional or local climates, and it is rigorously so for the global climate, or global mean surface temperature. I have written of this many times, for example:

True Situation in Climate Science

Just remember: Weather does not affect the climate; rather climate -- the stage upon which weather plays its transient parts -- constrains the weather, within a fundamentally unchanging environment globally.

Friday, December 14, 2018

The Rise of Unthinking False Dogma in American Science

I have submitted the following comment to the American Thinker site, in response to an article about the degeneration of Scientific American magazine into a kind of "church organ" of materialistic science and, now, the Insane Left brought to political correctness by Barack Obama. I am of course most mindful of the sorry state of science today, not the political dissolution:

First there was Charles Darwin, who doubted his God and concocted a bootstrap physical world, suspended by its own magical "evolution" apart from any meaning to it all. Then there was Secular Humanism, an overextension of the Enlightenment that made Man -- and his unplumbed origin and plethora of mental eccentricities -- the measure of all.

For a long time, the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) was the standard-bearer for the denial of design in the world and what it implies -- scientifically, but they can't stand that, and so redefine science to keep it out -- about a higher reality than the merely physical. For a long time, it has been an increasingly unbending promulgation of undirected evolution, that has been for several generations now only empty dogma/propaganda.

When Scientific American caught the disease, and began to morph into a full-on organ of the Church of Evolution and the Scientific Consensus, also known as the "The Science Is Settled" cult sect, it quickly lost all credibility with real scientists, who do not worship any theory (like Evolution), but only seek the light of the truth, however hard and long is the road to it.

See for example:

Once and Future Paradigm is back


Design vs. Contrivance

A new world order, a new scientific and religious paradigm, is here. And the current consensus knows nothing of it, and won't stoop to look at it.