Global Climate Hysteria is at Odds with the Stable Global Design I Discovered

I have posted the following comment on the tallbloke site, in response to the news that Great Britain is doubling down on its hysterical belief in "global climate change/global warming":

The whole world and everything in it was designed (in a series of progressively lesser designs, not a single creation). That includes the global mean surface temperature, as the Standard Atmosphere model assumes and I have precisely confirmed over 9 years ago (and explained, by its simple physics, in the years since) on my blog. The world, in all of its complexity and even its most extreme variations (which are local, and transient, not global nor abiding), are utterly stable -- by design.

The foundation of science -- the very idea of unchanging "natural laws" -- rests upon the fact of the world's designed stability.

My discovery and verification of "the Great Design of the "gods" " -- the last in the series of designs -- confirms the world's design, as never before imagined, in all of history, and sets at naught all expostulations of any substantial global climate change (as well as any dogmatic defense of the current, false, central theories of all the earth and life sciences: Darwinian -- undirected -- evolution, and plate tectonics).

The present worldwide insanity comes just as my revolutionary new knowledge would cure it, instantly with that knowledge's acceptance by the wider world. The new knowledge reveals the single, objective origin of all the world's "Ancient Mysteries", and all of its false dogmas, and can cure all those that are now dividing mankind and tearing at the fabric of modern civilization.

Climate Alarmism Is But a Symptom of the Failed Uniformitarian Paradigm

I have submitted the following comment to the American Thinker site, in response to another commenter who averred that the climate change debate was politics, not science. My concern is with the science, so I responded:

It has been about politics, or political propaganda -- a Big Lie -- since 1988 or so, when it became a UN movement (to "redistribute wealth", as they have lately admitted) but before that, from about 1960, it was about the failure of climate science, which in turn was just the tip of the tail of the failure of the paradigm behind all of the earth (and life) sciences.

You see, the "greenhouse effect" originally came into science as a way to explain past "ice ages", which were themselves but a uniformitarian "explanation" for the patterns of geologic stratification, physical scratches, and erratic boulders found over the surface of the Earth. Carl Sagan championed the "greenhouse effect" in 1960 and after, and one of his students was James Hansen, who became the premier climate alarmist scientist of our time.

But back to the dog and its tail-tip. What we see now in the "debate" over "climate" (both of these are fake terms, as used in the political propaganda) is a replay of the debate in the latter 19th century, between Darwinian (undirected, uniformitarian) evolution and "Catastrophism", with the ironic twist that the followers of the uniformitarian paradigm -- the consensus, since Darwin -- are now the catastrophists, in positing a "global climate" that is balanced on a razor's edge (of "radiation forcings", one of which is the "greenhouse effect"), that is being knocked asunder by a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide from about .03% of the atmosphere to about .04% -- totally negligible.

The bottom line: First, "climate science" is a failed science; as I keep writing -- because I proved it, with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison and merely solid, COMPETENT physical reasoning -- there IS no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists. Climate science needs to be taken from the climate scientists, because they have all been miseducated and have all failed. And that is irrespective of their subornation to an insane political narrative on the Left. But second, the paradigm of uniformitarian evolution of the physical Earth -- the extended Darwinian paradigm -- has failed, has in fact failed from its inception, despite its supposed support from Mendelian genetics, in the life sciences (there is no such, even seeming, support for it in the earth sciences -- only random cosmic accidents, "early on in the development of Earth" as the believers chant, to themselves as well as to every new student that comes to them). Genetics only lays bare the DESIGN of life, not its development -- the latter, comprising "evolution theory", is all made-up, unsupported, and even multiply disproved, speculation.

There is a crisis of incompetence throughout science today, because of the wrong turn made by Darwin and his followers more than a century and a half ago. And the bad science is just one part of the world-encompassing false dogmas, that have been too long nurtured by various groups, and cultures, that we are faced with today.

We are living in a climactic time, when many false dogmas are "coming home to roost" at the same time. Yes, like Islam, and every religion (and religiously-held ideas of every kind). It is a test, whether we have really grasped the Enlightenment that brought forth America (and the scientific revolution), or we will slip back into the easy dogmas of every past, ignorant people, going back to the very beginning of human intellectual endeavors.

An Ever-Darker Future Imminent

The Jo Nova site has a post on South Australia's energy infrastructure woes, and the comments put blame on all the usual suspects. The following is my response, as a competent scientist:

Underlying the lazy (still too well fed and entertained), politically polarized public, and their representatives, and the larger tyrannous agenda of the Insane Left, is the fundamental crisis:

A general scientific incompetence–not among the public, but among the “experts” themselves, across all specialties that intersect with the climate or atmosphere, and thus among all those who should have nipped this in the bud–brought about and maintains the insanity surrounding “global warming/climate change/energy infrastructure transformation”.

Back in October 2011, I posted the following comment on Judith Curry’s “Climate Etc” site:

“Judith Curry’s testimony: ‘It is now up to the political process (international, national, and local) to decide how to contend with the climate problem.’

That’s what is wrong with this [Curry's] blog site, in a nutshell.”

In other words, she failed (and continues to fail, despite her stand against the “consensus”) to see how wide and deep is the incompetence in the “climate’ science itself–although all of you here who see the society-wide strict adherence to the alarmist narrative–in all of our most trusted institutions–on a daily basis, and know it is nonsense, know better.

As I have also written for the last 6 years, 1) stop all “climate policies” immediately, and 2) take “climate” science away from the “climate scientists”, indeed, take it away from any scientist who believes any part of it. It is all false; it all has to be redone, from the bottom up (as far back as the Standard Atmosphere, which alone is good science).

It Beggars the Imagination

When I first became aware of the "global warming" debate in late 2009 (a debate which was, years later, infamously changed to "climate change" when the "global warming pause" from 1997 to the present made it "politically expedient" to direct attention away from the continuing LACK of scientifically measurable global warming), I knew as a hard scientist that to find the truth I needed to dive to the heart of the matter and first seek definitive evidence CONTRARY to the consensus climate theory (of the "global warming greenhouse effect"), because there is no use holding, much less promulgating to the world, a theory that is definitively contradicted by real-world observations. Any scientist working within a theory always needs to keep a close eye out for such game-ending observations; it's known as looking for weaknesses in the theory being followed.

I have since found out that the weaknesses far outweigh the claims, and overwhelm the theory, at every turn, throughout climate science, and this is true not just of the "greenhouse effect", but even of the more fundamental "radiation transfer theory", which outlandishly treats the Earth's surface as a blackbody surrounded by vacuum (because atmospheric scientists "measure" the "radiation" coming off the Earth as just that coming off such a vacuum-surrounded blackbody). This fact alone should have caused competent scientists to demand a better radiation transfer theory, on the grounds that the "observed" Earth radiation is almost certainly a misnomer, and is really a measure of the TEMPERATURE of the surface, mistakenly interpreted as a blackbody radiation intensity (and a real "thermal radiation" spectrum). When one looks at the fundamental assumptions in the radiation transfer theory, one sees this error at a glance, because the theory divides the atmosphere into many layers, and the layers are all assumed to be "grey body" radiators, that is, blackbody radiators attenuated only by a local "emissivity" factor (a constant, less than 1, multiplying the fundamental Planck distribution spectrum of a blackbody). There are other obvious weaknesses in the radiation transfer theory (I have recognized it as basically a light extinction model, not a radiation transfer model), but the main one is this error of making everything a blackbody or a quasi-blackbody, mitigated only by a fudge factor called the "emissivity factor". A graduate student in physics could see that this theory almost certainly only works because the atmosphere is in fact subject to a strict vertical temperature distribution, a predominant, set (i.e., unchanging) distribution of temperatures, and so long as you have a predominant, unchanging set of temperatures, you can formally replace it with a set of "blackbodies", or "greybodies" with "emissivity" fudge factors. Such a theory won't allow you to predict temperature from radiation "forcings", because the reality works just the opposite way, with temperature controlling the "radiation" being measured, not vice-versa. But climate scientists don't want to question that theory, even though their models, based upon "radiation forcings", are infamously unable to track the observable global mean surface temperature. As I have found, from my 2010 Venus/Earth atmospheric temperatures comparison, it is the simple, set temperature distribution of the troposphere (known as the "lapse rate" structure) that controls the global mean temperature, not any constituent of the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide (CO2) or other so-called "greenhouse gases". That set, vertical temperature distribution can be overwhelmed, but only near the surface, by local and transient causes including night versus day, the seasons, localized temperature inversions and weather changes (of course it varies with latitude, but you can use an average, or mid-latitudinal, lapse rate structure, as the century-old Standard Atmosphere does); but it rules the global mean temperature, at any level in the troposphere, utterly, and the Venus/Earth comparison proves that definitively.

In the context of that Venus/Earth comparison, this post is about emphasizing how only the difference in the distance of the two planets from the Sun accounts for the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, which is essentially a constant (1.176) over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures (above and below the thick Venus cloud layer). This fact should be emphasized because of the huge differences in the conditions in the two planetary atmospheres, all of which are presumed by climate scientists to affect the temperature, but which have precisely zero effect in actuality. These differences include the amount of CO2 in the air (0.04% in Earth's versus 96.5% in Venus's); the amount of sunlight reflected, not absorbed, by the planet (either at the surface or off the planetwide cloud layer of Venus), 30% by Earth and 70% or more from Venus; and the difference in planetary surface (Earth being 70% ocean, Venus all solid crust).

But there is a further huge difference in the two planets, in the theory learned and defended by climate scientists, and this post was written primarily to remind everyone of it. It is a truism among today's climate and atmospheric scientists that "the Sun warms the Earth, and the Earth warms the atmosphere". But that physical "explanation" certainly doesn't extend to the other, cloud-enshrouded planets, which all show the same "negative lapse rate" structure that Earth's atmosphere does, even though their clouds absorb all of the sunlight before it can reach the surface. So the lapse rate structure does not depend upon warming the planetary surface first. As mentioned in my Venus/Earth comparison post, other physicists have pointed out that conditions for the "greenhouse effect" are not met on Venus, precisely because the effect requires that the atmosphere be heated from the surface, and not enough sunlight gets through to the surface there to heat it first.

So the biggest "difference" (though it's not real) is the different physics one has to imagine for atmospheric warming on Earth versus Venus. Venus, and all the other planets with massive atmospheres are obviously warmed from the top down, while Earth is believed by today's scientists to be warmed from the surface. Add that "difference", in the supposed fundamental physics of atmospheric warming, to all those other differences between Venus and Earth. And yet, the two atmospheres don't respond differently at all, to all those differences; only the distance from the Sun matters, very precisely.

Despite all the work that has gone into the theories championed and defended by atmospheric and climate scientists, despite the lifetimes of work that have been invested in them, the simple Venus/Earth comparison I did, fully 19 years after the Venus data I used became available, tells me--and any competent physical scientist--they are wrong, and wrong-headed, and indeed incompetent (because I am not a "climate expert", and what I have done is what any competent scientist, even any student of science, should have done more than a generation ago). This state of affairs beggars the imagination--and yet it goes on, as a runaway political agenda, and a cult idea ("global warming", or "climate change"), that is sowing the seeds of destruction in every direction, throughout the world.

Global "Climate Change" Is a Lie, and Must Be Denied

Climatedepot continues to inform about the political war against "climate deniers", with a post, "Newsweek: Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change?" My reaction:

Does anyone have a Constitutional right to deny a lie? That is what the political phrase "climate change" is. And never mind "Constitutional", Newsweek, the question should be: Does anyone have the right to deny my (or any individual's, or group's) INALIENABLE (not just "Constitutional") right to deny that lie, no matter how many (including the mainstream media, like Newsweek) have been seduced into believing it?

Does anyone have a right to expose false dogma at the heart of the "science" behind that lie, by showing that science to be contrary to the simple but unyielding facts; that it deludedly ignores or outright denies those facts, in favor of a theory that has been falsified, and should have been falsified, within science itself, long ago, before ever it gave rise to the cancerous political abuse we now see throughout our "authoritative" (only now just corrupt and incompetent) institutions (like the AAAS, and all the others mentioned in the Newsweek article, as well as Newsweek itself and all of the mainstream media, which pretend to be "the people's voice")?

Like it or not, I have that right. So does Exxon. Anyone who disagrees is part of the destructive, fanatical cult that now holds political power in America--and that fanatical cult is the real problem, not the solution. It has proven itself to be NOT the "change we can believe in" after all. It has proven itself a big lie, and a monster. I have given the facts against "climate science", as I know them, in earlier posts, and I won't put them here. Look them up, Newsweek. Do your real job.

I Am a Defier Now

Judith Curry has a post on "The State of the Climate Debate in the US". She says climate science is caught in the middle, in the ongoing fight between the Democrats and the Republicans. My response is:

Publically point out that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is essentially a constant that is precisely determined by the two planets' distances from the Sun, and nothing else, despite Venus's atmosphere having 2400 times the concentration of CO2 as Earth's (so there is no greenhouse effect due to "greenhouse gases" at all)...or you are a denier, of the definitive fact that disproves the consensus, and an incompetent climate scientist. The bottom line is that the stable Standard Atmosphere rules in Earth's atmosphere, on the global scale, and that will be the obituary for this generation of failed climate scientists, whose consensus opinion is worthless and is the real culprit--given the gargantuan political misuse of it and the subornation of all of our supposedly authoritative institutions by it. Climate science is NOT caught in the middle of the Left-Right political divide over "climate change"; its absolute, complete incompetence both started and maintains it. You are all a joke, and your climate science has no business on the all-too-serious stage of public discourse. I used to say I am a denier of it, not just a skeptic; now, given the runaway political machinery, I am a defier. So get your burning stakes ready; you will be needing them.

It Is Fraud, Not Climate Science At All

The masterresource site, among many other blogs, has addressed the new claim that there is really no "global warmng pause" (over the last two decades) to counter the mentally unhinged political narrative (of Barack Obama) of imminent runaway "climate change". My response:

The whole "debate" is laughably incompetent (and has been for 25 years--since the inception of the UN's IPCC, it should be emphasized). All of these "experts" fall far short of competence by not demanding the immediate firing of Karl (et al.) for deliberate deception--fraud, that is--and the immediate rescinding of any and all regulations falling under the general heading of "climate policy". Earth's "climate" varies internally (over the globe, you see) from tropical to polar, but the global average (as referenced by the global mean surface temperature) is unchanging, as the century-old Standard Atmosphere model of the atmosphere implies, and that model is precisely--precisely--confirmed by the simple comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Earth (with .04% CO2) and Venus (with a whopping 96.5%). There is no discernible global warming greenhouse effect, a simple fact that no "expert"--or politician--will truthfully admit.

The proper lesson of the present debate, over Karl et al., is that the data used to calculate the global mean surface temperature (GMST) by today's climate scientists is too noisy (naturally varying and uncertainly measured) to support any claim of global warming at all, and it has to be tortured--fraudulently, to any truly competent physical scientist--to do so. That's what the man on the street should be hearing from any so-called "expert".

Incompetent Skeptics IV: Dr. Judith Curry

The climate depot site has a link to a puff piece on Judith Curry and her views on climate change/global warming. The following is my response:

This is a puff piece, based entirely on a friendly, personal view of Dr. Judith Curry. But the climate change debate is not about any person, especially any academic who basically accepts the climate science as sound and, as they like to say in their own best interests, "settled". Those who have involved themselves in the debate--who have studied the science behind it, and the arguments about that science--are strung out over the full range, from complete acceptance of the academic science to complete rejection of it. A layperson must either choose an "authority" to believe in, blindly, or seek out the definitive facts that tell for or against climate science theory--for that is what they are getting from all sides, predigested theory presented, smoothly and easily, as fact.

I am a 65-year-old physicist by education and long experience, in the academic and high-tech industrial sectors, and in presenting my view to laypersons, I take the latter route, of uncovering the definitive facts that anyone can appreciate. I uncovered the definitive fact that disproves the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, and any need to worry about a "runaway global climate" at all, nearly 3 years ago, in November 2010 (see here).

When I found that definitive fact against the greenhouse effect, I knew the consensus climate science was not just wrong, it was in fact incompetent (for what I had done should have been done 20 years earlier, when the relevant data, on the atmospheric temperature and pressure profile of Venus, was obtained by the Magellan spacecraft. That it was not done at the time is a gross error by climate scientists at the time, and that it has been dismissed even after I pointed it out in November 2010 is a gross crime against all of science and the trust of the public that we scientists are both competent and honest.) In late November, when I first tried to inform Judith Curry and her blog readers of the definitive fact of the Venus/Earth temperature ratio--which depends only upon the two planets' distances from the Sun, and no additional "greenhouse effect" at all, despite Venus's atmosphere having over 2400 times the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide as does Earth's atmosphere (Venus 96.5%, to Earth's 0.04%)--the following telling exchange took place:

Judith Curry:

"whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible."

Harry Dale Huffman:

"The issue is whether they warm by absorbing incident solar radiation, or by absorbing secondary LW [longwave, i.e., infrared] radiation from the surface. I say the former, and there is no bouncing and amplifying of heat between the surface and the atmosphere."

In other words, I identified for her the mistaken belief she (and every other climate scientist) was nursing, that the atmosphere is warmed, on the global scale, from the surface, when in fact it is warmed, to its stable, equilibrium vertical temperature structure, by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation.

No climate scientist, including Judith Curry, has ever shown the slightest interest in or serious consideration of the fundamental corrections to climate science dogma that are provided by the definitive fact of the Venus/Earth temperature ratio. Yet any STUDENT of climate science could have done what I did, and seen what I saw.

So, as nice as Dr. Curry may be, she is--as is every other climate scientist or academic who defends the science behind the "global warming" scare--simply and unavoidably incompetent. And to put this in the proper context (because I know that charge of general incompetence among the "experts" sounds flamboyant and hyped to the unwary), I suggest the reader here also read the short article, "The System Is Broken: Incompetent Science and Insane Politics".

Climate: Global Me Vs. Local Everyone Else

I have submitted the following comment to the Real Science site, where Steven Goddard uses Charles Darwin to make a point about long-term and extreme "climate change", and someone made the point that Darwin considered climate to be local, not global:

I wish I could get people to realize this; it is the reason why all the supposedly learned discourse, by those with "climate" theories (including the "consensus"), about the effects of details in the atmosphere--such as water vapor, clouds, "greenhouse gases", etc.--is irrelevant to the global mean surface temperature, as definitively demonstrated by my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison. The global mean surface temperature is stable, so everyone is fundamentally deluded by thinking it must change because "climate changes". Only local conditions change, in my view, molded as it is by the definitive Venus/Earth evidence. The stable "global climate" (the global mean surface temperature, as given in the Standard Atmosphere) is maintained simply by the tropospheric vertical temperature lapse rate, due to the governing hydrostatic condition of the massive atmosphere itself, and by the fact that the troposphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar (IR) radiation, not from the surface of the Earth--heat from the surface drives the WEATHER, while heat from the Sun alone drives the global mean temperature.

But Darwin was wrong about undirected evolution, by "natural selection" of random mutations. --see here, here, and here.

War, Or Enlightenment: The Only Option

The climaterealists site has a post by James Delingpole, wherein he seriously asks what can be done about President Obama's lies about "climate change" (in quotes, because it is just a false idea, not a reality). The following is my response (with an added phrase or two at the end, to the comment as I submitted it):

The leaders and movers in the world act like they are playing an involved game of chess, but one in which pieces are never removed from play (the major pieces just move around in their own spot, the pawns are replaceable), so the King can always believe he is winning. The reasons appear to be because nations can really only attack one another through open war, economic sanctions, or psychological attacks. As long as the first, open war, is avoided, the strange chess game goes on and on, with ever increasing delusion on all sides. But that game, which the world is in now, is strictly limited in time, it cannot be sustained forever, or for long--two or three generations, perhaps, at most. Then real war must break out, and the game board reset.

Casting Off Fearful and Hateful Dogmas is the Key

The side Obama is on (and the "climate change" believers...and the academic scientists in general) is thoroughly deluded by dogma; I have, for the last 3 years, known them as The Insane Left. Conservatives seem on the surface to be less deluded, but childish in their slavish adherence to their dogma. And underneath all, what drives the whole game, towards its only possible, inevitable outcome, is the belief in "survival of the fittest in a world of limited resources" (so only the biggest players were helped in the infamous "bailout stimulus", those "too big to fail"). If you don't really provide, on a more or less continuous basis, for the individual over the corporation or state, then you eventually come to being FORCED to bail out even the biggest of the big, to keep the game going. Education was supposed to be the continuing help for individuals, but the rigor-mortis of long-uncorrected dogma has slowly been choking the life out of that "path to success", so that path is an uncertain one, through a swamp of societal delusions and exclusionary beliefs in the real world.

Obama is just the tail end of a long, sorry degeneration, of the whole world (because he fundamentally evinces, not the beliefs of the country he now "leads"--much as Nero "led" Rome--but beliefs held in the East, having lived as a child in Indonesia, and raised the half black/half-orphan of radical activists). And so I see war coming: With the Insane Left in the US, and the wider East-West delusions--midwifed by global, yet myopic, business developments--that are causing the East to believe "it is our turn to rule now", there is real, political war here, and the stage is being set for World War III on the wider stage.

Yet after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the atom bomb has never been used to attack another country. Men can collectively decide, as the imaginary Captain Kirk famously once noted, "We will not kill TODAY!"--on a daily basis, if need be. We can also collectively and individually decide, "We will not judge AGAINST one another, solely on the basis of the past, nor on the basis of received authority from the past--on the basis of dogma". The key is, and always has been, the Golden Rule, which is NOT "Do unto others as they have done to you" (which is the way of the mentally stunted jihadist, essentially bound to the past), and not "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" (which is the secular humanists' childish rewrite of the everlasting rule among men) but "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In other words (and a hat-tip to Jesus of Nazareth) "Love one another as you love your selves" (and if that sounds too sugary to you, understand "love" as, "respect, way down deep, where it counts, and in all your actions").

The Climate Science "Debate": All Should Come Clean

I have submitted the following comment to the Roy Spencer site:

Roy Spencer wrote: "...we have only one subject to study, the Earth. Establishing causation in such a situation is dicey, at best."

Wrong. We have Earth AND Venus, which are easily shown to be warmed alike, despite the great differences in albedo (30% vs. 70%), CO2 atmospheric concentration (.04% vs. 96.5%), and planetary surface (Earth is 70% ocean, Venus all solid crust), because: The ratio of atmospheric temperatures, Venus/Earth, is essentially a constant over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, and especially so away from the Venus cloud layer, where the constant (1.176) is PRECISELY due to the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun. This fact can only be explained by concluding that both atmospheres are warmed by absorption of the SAME fraction of the incident solar irradiation, and not from the planetary surface: I have explicitly given (at the above link) the simple equations for the mean temperatures in the two atmospheres based upon that assumption, and shown that the fraction (f) absorbed by the two atmospheres drops out of the equation for the ratio of the temperatures, so that one can apply the basic Stefan-Boltzmann formula, without any albedo correction, as I did boldly and simply in my original approach. With the temperature ratio due only to solar distances, there is simply no greenhouse effect due to the much larger CO2 in Venus's atmosphere. That is how easy it is to establish (the lack of) causation, of a supposed temperature increase with increasing carbon dioxide (and thus for any "greenhouse gas"). See also "For Climate, All the World's a Stage".

There have been no competent climate scientists since the Venus temperature and pressure data was obtained over 20 years ago, an elementary study of which (like mine) should have quickly killed the "global warming greenhouse effect". The only real atmospheric warming by IR-absorbing gases is the fundamental warming by direct absorption of incident solar radiation. There is no extra warming due to increasing CO2--nor is there extra warming from the surface (surface warmth merely drives the weather/climate).

This is the revolutionary correction to climate science that everyone is steadfastly ignoring. Everyone needs to admit, first to themselves and then immediately to the world, their mistakes, but right now, everyone but me continues to double down on their invalid scientific prejudices. I understand that, but it makes all the debates since my Venus/Earth analysis simply irrational avoidance behavior, entirely unworthy of true, dispassionate science.

"There are more things..."

A small example of the largely vain public debates about "proper" science today is provided at wattsupwiththat.com, focusing upon one individual who rants about climate change, against the "deniers", in the media. The scientific skeptics of the climate "consensus" are outraged that they should be wrongly linked with "creationists" by that individual, and others. Here is my view on the matter:

It doesn't matter what subject you exclude from "proper scientific discussion", the mere fact that you do so means you need to first learn one thing above all else, if you even hope to become a true scientist, someday:

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio."

There are even objective and compelling reasons behind the ancient belief that the world was flat (no, it is not literally, physically true, but as a cogent metaphor, for an anciently-organized and literally overwhelming system, of physical facts (!), hidden for all of recorded history behind the misdirected concreteness of ancient myth and other earliest religious dogma, there is a world -- even a universe -- of understanding behind it).

Until you learn Shakespeare's immortal warning, above, once and for all, you are only a child, playing childish games in the nursery. As Isaac Newton famously said of himself:

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

I have learned enough to actually swim in that (literally) great ocean -- where no one, scientist or not, has ever swum before. And you can too, if you forsake petty squabbling about what is "proper" to investigate scientifically, and determinedly seek the truth -- physical, mental, or spiritual -- wherever it leads.