The Insane War, a War of Dogmas

Something of what is going on in the world, affecting the fundamental processes by which our civilization works, can be seen at the Pajamas Media and invisibleserfscollar sites, where I have submitted the following comments:

At Pajamas Media, concerning "the 3 great scams of our time":

All three of these "scams" really depend, not upon conspiracy per se, but upon a general incompetence, of the uninformed populace but also of the "experts", who were supposedly well-educated to BE experts--but are in fact not.

It is the incompetence brought about by long-held, religiously held, dogma, culminating in our time on many fronts, in many fields, but most especially in science, the very home of objective thought and understanding.

The human race is at war with unquestioned dogmas, some of them rooted in pre-history, in the earliest myths (which played the part of authoritative science in the truly ancient world, before the rise of the known civilizations). There is new scientific knowledge concerning those earliest and most divisive, most violent, most religious dogmas, that could dissipate much senseless hatred in the world today. But that newly civilizing knowledge is not welcome among the mandarins of academic science, the arbiters of what may be discussed, and who may be considered expert.

What makes this time insane, is that the supposed experts in every field are incompetent. The intellectual and psychological forces at work are beyond their blindered scientific understanding--their obsolete understanding, based upon too small a time frame, too small a sample of, essentially, scientific fads.

"Who knows only his own generation remains always a child."
 
And at InvisibleSerfsCollar:

Today's world is a war of dogmas, which have been long held, for varied time periods up to and including all of known history and more, and thus well entrenched. This is true even in the hard sciences, which are all in an unrecognized crisis of incompetence, characteristic of the times (although the false dogmas there are only a century or two old--still enough to be taken as gospel today). A good watchphrase is, "He who knows only his own generation remains always a child." A people taught from youth only according to what are essentially the fads of the decade, or the generation, or even the century, is a civilization started on a downward slope, that accelerates suddenly to the point of dislocation and violent confrontation of opposing ideas. Only new knowledge, new real expertise, about the far past can harmonize the many divisive dogmas currently at war in our society and in the world. And academics have been brought up in recent generations to dismiss and deny the new knowledge that is in fact coming out, through individuals like me (and especially by me, as I am an independent physicist with hard knowledge that corrects both science and religion, about the true origin of the world, and its continuing myths, as we know it).

Climate Science Not the Greatest Hoax, After All

I have submitted the following comment to Alan Caruba's Warning Signs site, where the subject is "The Greatest Hoax", referring to the "global warming" hysteria:

I am an independent (and therefore unwanted) physicist (64 years old, and educated before the great educational train wreck of the last 40 years, which has miseducated the last two generations of physical scientists), and I disproved the "greenhouse effect" supposed to underpin the global warming hysteria, with the definitive evidence I know is needed to correct climate science. It is not just the man/woman on the street who pays no attention, what is frightening to me is that there are no climate or atmospheric scientists competent enough, or honest enough, to listen to that definitive (and quite simple, for a scientist) evidence.

I have been saying for some time that all of our institutions (AAAS, NAS, APS, AGU, etc.) have been suborned by the incompetent climate consensus (and of course, the cheerleading media). What makes this climate hoax greater than even the insiders among the "consensus skeptics" (a.k.a. "deniers") know, is that the greater the authority of the institution, the more its subornation is tied to a religious belief in evolution theory. That is to say, they think that opposition to the global warming idea is tied to a "creationist" denial of evolution (when they don't put such "denial" down to the evil of "Big Oil corporations").

And it is, in a larger context that both they AND the skeptics don't yet even imagine can possibly be true: The bad theory behind global warming is just the tail of the dog of the general evolution paradigm, that science has hewed to since Darwin: That everything we observe in the natural world is the product of undirected physical processes, without any deliberate design as even most scientists believed before Darwin. In such a paradigm, the Earth is all too easily seen as unstable (rather than the harmonious, repeating dynamic stability man has observed throughout history), and therefore can be subject to runaway climate ("ice ages", as well as "global warming"). That paradigm is now failing, increasingly openly, as the incompetence of scientists grows, as they struggle to tack on layer after layer of theoretical "natural" processes--like the non-existent "greenhouse effect"--to their "explanations". I am the only scientist in the world, so far as I know, who really, professionally knows this, because of my discovery and verification of the "great design of the gods", the highly fragmented and misunderstood knowledge of which--passed down by the "gods" to their offspring, historical man--was responsible for all the "ancient mysteries" of mankind's most ancient religiously-held beliefs.

Children In Charge in the Climate Debates

I have submitted the following comment on the Real-Science site, where Steven Goddard concluded:  "Temperatures continue to plummet below Hansen’s Scenario C – which represents humans having disappeared off the planet twelve years ago. The only possible interpretation being that human generated CO2 has little or nothing to do with global temperatures.  Our alarmist friends, being the crooks that they are, will continue to pretend that they don’t notice this disaster.":

And the "lukewarmers" will also continue to pretend, that there is a greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide--just not a "catastrophic" one. Well, as a real scientist, I say anyone who thinks there is ANY such global-temperature-raising greenhouse effect, is incompetent and should be thrown out of science. Once again, my comparison of temperatures in the tropospheres of Venus and Earth, here--which should have been done by any competent, interested scientist 20 years ago--is the definitive evidence, that makes the "no greenhouse effect at all" obvious. If there were a greenhouse effect, it would ADD to the temperature in Venus's atmosphere (which has over 2400 times, or over 11 doublings of, Earth's carbon dioxide concentration), but in fact the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a CONSTANT, and even more amazing, that constant is PRECISELY, physically explained by the two planets' relative distances from the Sun, and nothing else. Until that is faced, there is no viable climate science at all.


I am also still waiting for someone to find independently what I suggested many months ago, that the global temperature record is really not that at all, but only an unrecognized proxy for the multidecadal ocean oscillations, and that is really why the former and the latter are so well correlated since the 17th century. I am sadly amused that the surface temperature in the Standard Atmosphere--which I confirmed in my Venus/Earth analysis--is 288.15K, and has been for a century, and that is higher than the supposed mean global surface temperature, even after a century of "global warming".

Unfortunately, the climate "debate" is just so many barking dogs, unwilling to learn anything but only wanting to defend their respective territories. (The consensus is thus a "Lord of the Flies" phenomenon: Out of control children, really, without any responsible parental authority.)

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.)

Dismissive Academia: A Continuing Scientific Farce

I have submitted the following comment to Steven Goddard's Real-Science site, where the subject happens to be the intransigence and incompetence of climate consensus defender David Appell, a self-styled "science journalist" who also claims a Ph.D. in theoretical physics:

There is not a dime's worth of scientific competence in the wider public climate debate, particularly on the academics' side (which is Appell's side), otherwise the comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, which simply disproves the "greenhouse effect" underlying the alarmist "consensus", would be front-page news worldwide by now, and all the defenders of that consensus, including David Appell, would be revealed for the science incompetents and academic cover-ups they are.

Any physical scientist, certainly any supposed "expert", having seen from my comparison that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a constant that is precisely--precisely--explained by the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun, and nothing else, and knowing the great differences between Venus and Earth (in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, cloud cover/albedo, and planetary surface) should quickly agree that the physical reason for that fact must be that both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of the same physical fraction of the incident solar radiation.

It has nothing to do with considering any part of a planet-plus-atmosphere system a blackbody (so don't even go there, Appell). It has to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann formula properly applied to ANY body in thermal equilibrium, and subject only to radiational warming (P, in Watts/m^2 ABSORBED RADIATION, properly averaged over the surface of the body--OR over some portion of the body that quickly attains local thermal equilibrium due to that warming, as is known for the airless Moon, for example):

P = σ (T)^4 (T to the fourth power)

I emphasize, P is the absorbed radiational power intensity, not the incident. (It should go without saying that, for a blackbody, the absorbed power is equal to the incident power, whereas for a non-blackbody, it is not.)

Thus, any two planetary atmospheres, which are warmed by direct absorption of the same physical fraction of the incident solar radiation, will have a temperature ratio governed only by the ratio of their distances from the Sun (I show the explicit equations for the two atmospheres, and their temperature ratio, at the above link). I claim this is the only reasonable physical interpretation of the Venus/Earth comparison, and that it should have been made 20 years ago, when the Venus data was taken by the Magellan spacecraft, and the "greenhouse effect" quickly dropped from the canon of "established science" then. It is a continuing embarrassment for all of physical science that it was not, and a scientific fraud that my findings have been, and continue to be, dismissed by the likes of David Appell, all the defenders of the climate "consensus", and even skeptics like Monckton, Lindzen, Spencer, and anyone else who insists there IS a carbon dioxide greenhouse effect contributing to global warming. THERE IS NO SUCH EFFECT.

My Venus/Earth comparison confirms the Standard Atmosphere model as the equilibrium state of Earth's troposphere, and the mean tropospheric temperature in that model is 259.3K. With the mean incident solar power 1367 W/m^2, at Earth's orbital radius, that temperature implies 18.75%, or approximately 19%, of the Sun's incident radiation quickly warms the troposphere directly beneath its rays (I would suggest, for the "expert's" consideration, perhaps over the entire daylit side of the planet) to the Standard Atmosphere equilibrium, vertical temperature lapse rate--and the Earth's surface, separately heated by the Sun during the day, and prevented by the atmospheric lapse rate from further heating the atmosphere beyond transient/local effects (i.e., just those effects we call "weather", and "climate"), acts to cool the near-surface atmosphere during the night (so that many locations see a local temperature inversion near dawn). I note, without further discussion, that the infamous Kiehl-Trenberth earth energy budget, shown here, shows some 19.5% of the incident solar radiation being directly absorbed by the atmosphere (though that would include not just the troposphere, as I am focusing upon here, but the stratosphere as well--so I suspect that energy budget is not necessarily accurate, or the albedo may be 0.23, rather than the widely touted 0.30--and this needs to be looked into by atmospheric physicists).

My Venus/Earth comparison (rather than any proposed "complete" theory of weather/"climate") is the definitive evidence needed for the fundamenatal correction of climate science. Academia needs to embrace it, and because it has already been published, and academia has dismissed it without proper, and public, consideration, they should not wait for it to be published in their favorite peer-reviewed (i.e., academic) journals (which are behind the times in this revolutionary time). Too much wrong has been done in the name of bad climate science, and everyone needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary, into the science shower, to come clean.

Incompetent Public Climate Debate Wrongly Accepted as "Post-Normal Science"

Everyone knows there is dissension among scientists over the supposed climate consensus, which is being politically, massively abused. There are a range of scientific opinions, virtually all of them incompetent in accepting, to some degree, the false "greenhouse effect", of increasing temperature with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But the politicization of the consensus, and the subornation of all of our institutions to that consensus, makes the climate debate a public one, with mostly non-scientific voices pretending to follow the science. There are a range of such non-scientific voices, or opinions, too. At one extreme of that range lies the call for an entirely open debate, in which all voices are welcomed indiscriminately. That extreme position is well exemplified in the Judith Curry climate blog, Climate Etc., as well as the Klimazwiebel ("Klima Zwiebel", German for "Climate Onion") site. The entirely open debate has been elevated at such sites to its own category, known as "Post-Normal Science", as if such open debate were the democratic evolution of science into a community sing-along, with every song welcome.

I have submitted the following short response to the latest entry, and reference to "post-normal science", at Klimazwiebel:

Werner Krauss wrote: "...Science indeed is plural, it is many sciences in one. It is plural enough to give a voice to 'skeptics, political interests, climatic determinism, religion'..."

Science is no such thing. What you are talking about is the sociology of public debate over a scientific question (like "global warming", or more correctly, for the layperson beset by climate dogma, "runaway climate"). Science is much larger, deeper, grander than a mere concatenation of voices with different points of view. It is something entirely other than such an inharmonious concatenation, and you have wrongly identified it by accepting that concatenation of voices as science, calling it "post-normal science". It is not science at all; science simply IS NOT a "ritualized societal practice". (I suspect you are a sociologist, or merely strongly attracted to sociology, for the truth is rather that sociology is but an imitation of science--an attempt to apply the scientific method, based firmly upon objective observation, to sociological questions, but ever stymied by those questions' essential subjectivity, as exemplified by the many voices with different points of view that you refer to with such motherly concern, as if they were your children, all needing encouragement.) Sociology is not a meta-science, that can subsume any and all other sciences within itself; you are fundamentally mistaken, and go beyond the bounds of competent logical debate, by assuming it can.

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”.