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.

In One Ear and Out the Other

The Real Science site has a post on "Understanding Climate Science in One Paragraph", a paragraph that informs the reader that the globe warmed from 1977 to 1991, and very little if any since.

I find this interesting, because I informed the Real Science author and his readers of this (I specified the time period as 1976 to 1989/90) as early as September 2013, nearly two and a half years ago--and in a number of later comments on the site. To my knowledge, he never mentioned my insight, including in this latest post. (To be fair, no other blog ever acknowledged me either, when I tried to inform them years ago that the global mean sea surface temperatures, from late 2010 through much of 2011, precisely tracked those in 1990/91, twenty years earlier.)

The Real Science author also never mentioned my informing him that US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted According to the Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere either--but he told it to his readers two years later (precisely two years later, as a matter of fact).

His acceptance of my insights thus has seemed to lag my attempts to inform him of them by two years or so, and without ever mentioning me. So I have generally stopped visiting his site.

Anthony Watts, meanwhile, will no longer accept my comments on his "wattsupwiththat" site, and he has been hostile to me ever since my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison showed any competent physical scientist that there is absolutely NO carbon dioxide "greenhouse effect" (which he adamantly defends), all the way from the 0.04% CO2 in Earth's atmosphere to the 96.5% in Venus's. The "greenhouse effect" is a religious cult, of brainwashed believers, whether "consensus" or "skeptics".

This is one of the reasons why I don't post on my blog as often as others in the climate debate--I have found both "warmists" and "lukewarm" critics of the warmist "consensus" to be tone-deaf to me, and to the definitive evidence I have tried to put forward.

The other, main reasons are 1)that the public climate discourse, on the part of those in power now and their loyal followers, is insane and immune to honest reason, and 2)that almost no one wants to listen to my main message to the world, of the Great Design of the "gods", which overthrows the central theories of all the earth and life sciences, and heralds a new scientific paradigm, beyond that of "undirected evolution" of the physical world, and of the universe beyond. I have given definitive evidence proving that as well, on this blog.

The mess that is "climate science" is just the tip of a general incompetence in science today, across all fields of science, from the submicroscopic to the cosmic.

I do not write this to complain, but to inform anyone who wants to know the truth about the real size of the problem we face.

No Consensus (or Too Many Chiefs)

Bob Tisdale has a post (also posted on the wuwt site) showing "no consensus on Earth's top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance" among the models touted by climate scientists. These kinds of critical analysis are pretty dense (detailed), especially for laypersons, and I have much better, simpler evidence to offer, so I responded:

Consensus climate science is so bad, it should come as no surprise to learn that a much simpler (and definitive) indictment of it can be made, just from the figure 1 above (Trenberth’s “global earth energy budget”). Concerning that figure, I wrote back in October 2010:

“It all looks straightforward enough, but then when you look closely you see something strange, off on the right side: The radiation coming off the surface is huge, and there is an almost equally huge ‘back radiation’ from the atmosphere to the surface. To a physicist–or at least to this physicist–that strange, gigantic loop of energy between the atmosphere and the surface appears unphysical, out of all proportion to the rest of the diagram.

“And we don’t have to get into detailed physical theory or wordy explanations to pin down what’s wrong with it: The power coming off the surface (the number 390) is larger than the incident power from the Sun (342). (The power shown as ‘back radiated’ by the atmosphere is about as large as that from the Sun, too.)

“Just that one fact is enough for me to see that the ‘climate science’ of the U.N. and the consensus of (so we are told) 97% of all climate scientists–is absurd. No part of the ‘global energy budget’ can be greater than the incident energy. Either their numbers are wrong, or the model being illustrated is wrong. Period, full stop. You don’t have to know, or explain to the world, what is really going on, or why there has been recent ‘global warming’. Just know their explanation is nonsense, basic physics absolutely and undeniably forbids it. Everything else you read is either other scientists trying to show they know what is really going on (which obviously no one does at this point, entirely), or scientists or their followers trying to defend the indefensible, with complex, technical and always wrong-headed arguments.

“Of course, that unphysical loop of excess energy is just what they are calling the ‘greenhouse effect’. And it is garbage, and all the scientists who deny that, or refuse to see it for what it is, should be drummed out of science, or at least be required to undergo re-education. Because they are worse than first-year students, who are generally at least open to learning the hard truth.”

A little later, I realized the 390 W/m^2 supposed to be coming off the Earth’s surface was just that expected from a blackbody at the same temperature (288K), and then learned that the proponents of the radiation transfer theory (behind all those numbers in the “energy budget” diagrams and in discussions of “TOA radiation imbalance”) actually believe and teach, in their theory, that the Earth’s surface radiates like a blackbody poised in a vacuum. At this point, an honest and competent physicist can only recoil in horror, as if at a monstrous snake on one’s doorstep, and demand it be killed forthwith. And that’s where I stand, ever since. Trenberth is a miseducated idiot. All climate scientists are miseducated idiots, for not seeing that lie, of a huge loop of energy between atmosphere and ground, greater than that coming from the Sun, and expecting to get away with presenting it seriously to the world.

…and then I found the “skeptics” didn’t see it either, or pretended not to, because they never speak of it, that obviously ridiculous incompetence at the very heart of the consensus case.

And that (plus my Venus/Earth temperature vs. pressure comparison) is why I always say, there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists.

A Good Climate Policy: You Can't Get There From Here

Climate Etc has another post featuring sociologists/psychologists, "Against Consensus Messaging", where a commenter made the ridiculou claim that "consensus is an important part of the scientific method." My response to that comment, and to the blog's host, Dr. Judith Curry:

The scientific method only encompasses the discovery and objective verification of truth--a true understanding of a thing, a system or a process. Consensus is just a collective opinion about a thing, and has only a potential, tangential relation to the scientific method, a potential that is not realized unless the consensus opinion reflects the objective truth discovered and verified by the scientific method. Consensus is not "an important part of the scientific method", it does not in fact have any value in and of itself; it is, at best, only worthwhile to the extent it reflects the truth. That is why, as we now see everyday, even a consensus of authoritative experts, even of "97% of everybody", is worthless today--because the experts are all incompetent, before definitive evidence against their supposed understanding.

And blogs like this, addicted to sociological misdirections, away from the objective truth into the mire of mere opinion (collective or otherwise), merely thrash around in the mire, going nowhere and helping not at all (or only to the extent that they show just how incompetent the experts, like Dr. Curry, all are now).

Or to put it bluntly, sociology and psychology cannot enlighten physics, or any physical science. Dr. Curry needs to learn that her pursuit of good climate policy marks her as fundamentally deluded, because there is no such thing. "You can't get there from here", because there is no "here" here, where you continue vainly to focus your attention on opinion-making.

But I have been saying as much for about 5 years now, so I know you who feel yourselves to be part of a working system--a working scientific method, above all--are not heeding the evidence to the contrary (ironically, the sociological and psychological evidence, of the benighted and dysfunctional public and political debate).

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.

The Ocean and the Ill-Defined "Climate"

The Tallbloke site says "ocean makes climate", with 2 graphs. My response:

I don't know whether the last "430 words" [of the original post, linked to by tallbloke] address the direction of energy flow, but these two graphs do not. The ocean covers 70% of the surface, so one would worry if variations in the GMST and the GMSST did not largely agree. What these graphs tell me--and should tell anyone who didn't actively ignore my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison--is that it is the atmosphere, stupid (I add the "stupid" lovingly, not hatefully, sports fans), that controls the global mean SST (and of course the GMST). I would say (and I'm no expert, but at least I have some common sense) the oceans make weather, not global climate as defined by the GMST (and while they can make regional or local climate--and when are you all going to realize that that is the only "climate change" that can occur, so long as the Sun continues to shine on this world--they only do so in tandem with other local factors like latitude, topography--like mountains, affecting the prevailing winds--and the degree of forestation). The public and internet debate on "climate science" remains a case study in incompetence all around. This generation is failing a critical test.

Dealing With Criminal Authorities

Steven Goddard has come to the conclusion that the climate "debate" is no longer about science, and wonders how to deal with "criminals". My response:

You do what I have been doing for the last 3 years, ever since I definitively disproved the "greenhouse effect" with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (the scientific debate has been over ever since): You identify the Insane Left (and the subornation of all of our authoritative institutions by it) as the immediate problem--substituting as it does a political ideology, and outright tyranny, for science--and the underlying problem, that of a general incompetence among scientists, for letting climate science go so far wrong as to forget the Standard Atmosphere and the stable vertical temperature lapse rate structure of the troposphere. Beyond that, I can only recommend mass civil disobedience of any and all laws passed during the Obama years, particularly Obamacare and the anti-scientific EPA regulations (like officially denoting CO2 an "air pollutant", and thus subject to strict regulation under the Clean Air Act).

And you should prepare yourself mentally for increasing forays into governmental tyranny over individuals' rights--as more and more citizens fail financially--and for actual war (although that is most likely to occur when most of the Baby Boomers are dead).

When my greater discoveries are finally confronted and generally accepted, then our divisions will recede, people will start to really work together in a newly vibrant society, and real progress can be made, in science, religion and modern societies. For now, reason is taking a back seat to tribalism and past historical injustices, both real and imagined, and the world is pushing for war thereby.

Too Many Chiefs in the Climate War

The wuwt site has a post on "Categorical Thinking"--unfortunately, done in the service of the categorical thinking of lukewarmists in the climate debate (actually, political War)--and the following is my response:

It is as if, in a large classroom, one student has stood up here and made the above speech. In reality, he is just a student, and not a particularly good one, yet he talks like he is the professor, who has the answers required in the course. If it were not a classroom situation, everyone could spend time on his points, agreeing here and disagreeing there, but in the end his inexpertness--indeed, his incompetence in the handling of categories (so that he succumbs to them: "I am unable to understand why people act this way, but at least now I can categorize it!")--is what should shine through. He himself categorizes falsely. He thinks the proper way to think about climate is "how much warming?", and that of course is in line with Anthony Watts' thinking, known as the "lukewarm" position. Unfortunately, it is incompetent thinking, the result of forty years of miseducation of climate scientists. And it is all of the incompetent scientists who have allowed the fearful and tyrannical dogma--not "category", childish moderns, but good old fashioned dogma (the "greenhouse effect", of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide)--to energize what is now, in fact, political insanity at the highest levels of governmental authority.

The bell rang on the scientific bottom line--that the Standard Atmosphere model describes the real, equilibrium state of the atmosphere, and there is no destabilizing, global warming greenhouse effect--long ago, and without a real professor in sight, who knows that bottom line, this class has been dismissed for some time now. You are merely keeping the insanity going, by deluding yourself, and those who follow you blindly (dogmatically), that you have the answers.

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.

Why The Climate Debate Is Getting Nowhere in the End

I have submitted the following comment to the bishop hill site:

Unless and until they put my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison at the forefront of the debate, and everyone accepts that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is due only to the two planets' distances from the Sun, both sides will be missing the point, and embarrassingly, incompetently so.

It is not just that the climate consensus is wrong, or even that all of our institutions have been suborned by it. It is that this definitive evidence is actively denied, as "coincidence", and even the stoutest "skeptics" can't seem to hold onto it, and emphasize it above all other evidence, as they should--because the Venus/Earth comparison immediately shows just what is wrong in climate science, and how to correct it, on a whole handful of fundamental points. Perhaps above all, it shows that all of the attention given to problems with the temperature records, and how they have been manipulated, is a minor debate on a side issue, because my Venus/Earth comparison does not use those records in comparing Earth to Venus, it uses the Standard Atmosphere model, and confirms that model precisely(!) This tells us in no uncertain terms that the atmosphere is stable, and not at all subject to "runaway" warming OR cooling.

My Venus/Earth comparison should have been done by climate scientists, or atmospheric physicists, 20 years ago, and the "greenhouse effect" dropped from science then--if there had been ANY competent scientists around to do it. That today's scientists, alarmist and "lukewarm skeptic" alike, avoid confronting that simple comparison of two quite different, yet warmed precisely alike, planetary systems, is the fundamental problem in accepted climate physics today. It is simply incompetent, on the part of "97%" of consensus believers and skeptics alike, not to recognize this. But the egos of everyone will not let them imagine that they MUST go back and start over with climate science, back to the Standard Atmosphere--and give up those grandiose "worldwide mitigation" schemes to direct the peoples of the world. And, of course, give up their pretense to expertise on the subject, en masse.

It is a simple logical test, but an extremely difficult moral one, for every supposed "expert". (That is why I only call myself a competent physicist, and those who do not accept my Venus/Earth comparison, incompetent. I will brook no debate on this, among scientists; you are either competent or not--and I do NOT hold uneducated laypersons to the same standard.)

Why the Climate Debate Is Over, and Why Both Sides Continue to Debate Anyway

I have submitted the following short post to Steven Goddard's Real-Science website, where the recent corrupt actions, and underlying belief, of Peter Gleick are the topic of discussion:

I agree with Gleick (but he is wrong): I also think the debate/war is over, just on my terms (there is no greenhouse effect whatsoever, of increasing temperature with increasing carbon dioxide, and there are no competent climate scientists whatsoever, because they refuse to accept the definitive facts of the Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which shows that only the ratio of the two planets’ distances from the Sun is needed to precisely explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres. Fraudulent “experts” are those who say they will only recognize evidence presented through the peer-review process, even though that has been shown to be merely “pal-review”, and those who say the Venus/Earth comparison result (over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, mind you) is just a “coincidence”. In other words, the “debate”, on both sides, is insane, and everyone knows why–1) the emotional (not scientific) intransigence of the individual ego, multiplied over the millions of individuals who are invested in the consensus, 2) the ideological (not scientific) linking of the idea of “runaway global warming” with a reasonable concern for the environment, and 3) the political (not scientific) assumption of tight control over the people of the world, on the basis of fraudulent, wrong-headed “scientific consensus”.