Six Categories: A Lukewarmer's Biased Take on the Climate Debate

The masterresource site has a post on "six categories" of positions in the climate debate, according to Richard Mueller of UC Berkeley, who, the article says, should be an "important voice" in the debate. My response:

Bottom line: Mueller's categories are not valid, and he should not be "an important voice" for anyone looking for the truth. To say as he does that "warmists" stick to the science is a lie by omission, for they stick only to their "consensus" dogma, which has been shown, time and time again, to be utterly worthless. And his take on "deniers"--that as a group they "pay little attention to the details of the science"--is another lie; they are simply "skeptics" who have indeed studied the details presented by the "climate scientists", and over time have assured themselves that the warmists--both "alarmists" and "lukewarmers"--refuse to let go of their dogma long enough to realize that the consensus "climate science" is no such thing, is in fact completely counter to the observable facts. Mueller is worthless to anyone other than lukewarmers, who are trying to stake out their "reasonable middle" position as the only valid alternative to the alarmists. Politically, of course, that may seem reasonable, but it only kicks the chance for the scientific truth to be faced and accepted in this (or even the next) generation further into the future. The truth will out, but only those who know there is no valid climate science and no competent climate scientists today, are actually on the side of true science.

The article concludes with "reasonable" advice on governmental climate policy, but it too is worthless, for in the current rampant incompetence in science, there can be no rational "climate action". The "science"--much less the politics--simply cannot be trusted at this time.

Climate Alarmists and Lukewarmers Are All Incompetent

The Climate Etc site of the tenured (snugly employed) academic Judith Curry has a post on "lukewarmers", those who are proud to call themselves reasonable (as opposed to the alarmists on one side, and the "skeptics" who are "deniers" on the other). Their "reasonableness" has been a drag on any effective criticism of current climate science for years, and it is unfortunately the position of choice for many in the global warming debate. My response:

There is no haven in the lukewarmer position(s); climate science is totally wrong, because it is based upon the science of mere weather--alias local and transient processes--with no regard for the global constraint of the hydrostatic atmosphere, or for the direct heating of the atmosphere by the Sun rather than by the planetary surface. Their (your, Judith Curry) scientific incompetence is just as large as the alarmists'. But here at the nadir of the "debate" (or fruitless war of words) to co-opt the public to a science they are not equipped to judge, no one will question their own tragically flawed estimation of their own "expertness"; no one is learning anything. None of you is worthy of the name "scientist".

Strong and Growing Evidence of What?

I have submitted the following comment to real-science.com, on why we are still seeing alarmist warnings about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the media, when so many now know better:

It is basically a matter of "cover your backside", or bargaining for their future credibility, by both alarmists and "lukewarmers"--they want to set up the public to believe that they are just going by the "best evidence" and that, at worst, the evidence is not good enough to decide just yet whether AGW, or the greenhouse effect of increasing temperature with increasing CO2, is real. The alarmists will insist upon "AGW is real and dangerous" as long as they can, and only admit, over as many years as they can stretch it, that the growing evidence is looking more and more against the present "consensus" belief. And the "lukewarmers" are helping them, by also insisting the greenhouse effect is real, and forcefully stating at every opportunity that those who deny it are a lunatic fringe. Well, some scientists like me KNOW (and all should know, by now) there is no such greenhouse effect, AT ALL, and in fact that the very idea is incompetent. As a competent scientist (but with strong experience in piercing to the heart of a problem), it took me, from knowing nothing (and caring nothing) about the climate debate, only one year to come across, and immediately focus upon, the strongest evidence against the consensus (the lapse rate structure of the atmosphere, already long known in the Standard Atmosphere), and quickly nail down the definitive evidence that proves the incompetence of that consensus (my Venus/Earth temperature comparison, which not only totally invalidates the greenhouse effect, but also corrects climate science on a whole handful of basic errors in physical understanding of the warming of the atmosphere--including the amazing abuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann formula at the heart of the "settled science" of the radiative transfer theory, that underpins the greenhouse effect hypothesis--and confirms the stable Standard Atmosphere model as THE equilibrium state of our atmosphere, rather than a climate balanced on the razor edge of "radiative forcing" and routinely subject to "runaway climate"). What I did in a year, of casual internet study of the debate, climate scientists had 20 years to do, since the Venus data was first obtained by the Magellan spacecraft, in October 1991, and it could have been done by any student, much less climate science "expert", at any time. That scandalous reality, of the incompetence of all of science, to allow a false consensus to suborn all of our institutions, is what everyone who has aided or abetted that crime against science wants to keep the public from knowing. This should be the front-page news around the world (as I have been writing, on many web sites, for more than a year), but even 97% of skeptics refuse to heed it (and thus show themselves emotionally prejudiced, to the point of incompetence as scientists). The science is not hard, as I have proved to my professional scientific satisfaction, though the "avoiders" (the greenhouse effect believers) want to paint it so. The EGOS of 97% of the debaters, on both sides of the AGW debate, are on the line (not their funding).