Casting Off Fearful and Hateful Dogmas Is the Key

Steven Goddard has a post on the saving grace of the Internet today, where he concludes: "Information is the key to keeping the tyrants at bay." My response follows:

I think a true sense of morals--above all, honesty over self-interest, and logical reasoning over unquestioning acceptance of received "wisdom", or dogmas--is the key. I have known, ever since I discovered the Great Design of the "gods", that unquestioned dogmas were the key, and the universal threat to man, in this time. That's because I found that all of the "ancient mysteries"--and hence, all the earliest and most stubborn, religiously-held dogmas--came from visual images wrought on the Earth and celestial spheres by the design (the original "sacred images" and "sacred truth", never to be questioned by mankind). And also, because some of those early dogmas, of the bloody-minded, fearful variety, are among the greatest threats to free men now (most obviously, the lie that passes for a religion, Islam, in which "Allah" really has the same jealous and demanding nature as the "gods", and is really based upon the same, age-old superstitions left over from the worst age of the "gods").

"Emergent Phenomenon", or Design

The wuwt site has a post putting forth the idea of global temperature variations, or climate, as an "emergent phenomenon", and hopefully suggesting that idea might be a new paradigm for understanding "climate". I submitted the following comment:

The mean global temperature of the atmosphere is not an "emergent" phenomenon, but simply a designed one. No one has yet demonstrated to my professional scientific satisfaction that there has even been any real global (as opposed to regional) warming over the period of modern temperature records; it is entirely unclear that climate scientists are even properly measuring the true global mean surface temperature, that they may not after all have been merely identifying multidecadal ocean temperature oscillations as "global mean surface temperature".

"Emergent phenomena" is just a false euphemism for a very real design of the world (as is every other design-denying term that has been invented by defenders of the undirected evolution paradigm, to avoid admitting the rather obvious designs scientists and laymen alike can observe just about any day, if their eyes and minds are open to recognizing them--look, for example, at the flowers, and their characteristic so-called "co-evolution" with animals and plants, a fundamental characteristic entirely counter to the expectations of, and thus disproving, undirected evolution). The next paradigm, as only my research has uncovered, is a rebirth of appreciation for the world design, as most recently redone by the "gods" of ancient worldwide myths, in a wholesale re-formation of the Earth's surface (designed to communicate their deeds to any future mankind capable of seeing and interpreting it), only 10,000 to 20,000 years ago.

"There's No Money in the Pot for Climate Skeptics"

Steven Goddard has a post whose comments quickly turned into a discussion of the trials and tribulations of those of us who deny the popular, but tyrannical and false, climate consensus. I submitted the following comment:

I have gone down a different path than anyone, and don't really fit in anywhere any more. My epochal discoveries, coming outside of any professional paid employment or institutional framework, open the door to the next scientific paradigm--overturning the "undirected physical evolution" paradigm under which all the earth and life sciences now operate--but they require the fundamental re-thinking of every current theory of the origin and development of our world. I know, as no one else does, that there are no scientific experts any more. Who could believe that, if they hadn't done the hard research and found it for themselves? The answer, I have found over the last 10 years, is almost no one--certainly no academics, or happily-employed fellow scientists. (My own circumstances are, unsurprisingly, most limited, and dangerously precarious now--but I can only tell the truth, whether anyone wants to buy it or not.)

(I have changed the next sentence from the original comment I submitted, to improve the clarity of the idea I am trying to express:)

There is a growing general incompetence of scientists, and dogmatic denial of any correction, as never before, just at the time I am trying to make known revolutionary new knowledge about the origins of man on Earth. Of course, that is far too great a coincidence for the two to be unconnected. So, by the very recalcitrance of scientists to my claims and the veritable avalanche of incompetence I am seeing, in such fields as climate science, I also know mankind is being tested, as never before, by old dogmas that go all the way back to those hidden origins (and cannot be defeated without a knowledge of those quite specific, quite precise origins)--dogmas that originated in the Great Design of the "gods" (for, again, who could believe that the earliest creation myths and a world of ancient religious obsessions and pronouncements, of seemingly insane "sacred truths", were the misunderstood shards of knowledge of the Great Design--who but me, who verified that design through the smallest, and precise, details of those ancient obsessions, those undying traditions cast as "tall tales" of myth?)

Incompetent Nobel Laureates Signify a New Dark Age

Claes Johnson has a post on "Politicised Nobel Laureate Science" (they wrote an open letter emphatically endorsing Obama in the last election), to which I responded with the following comment:

Good for you to realize this. I wrote a letter to President-Elect Obama the very day after the 2008 election, of quite opposite import to the Nobelists' letter (which I was unaware of before now), and I put my letter on my blog 6 months later, in May 2009, as part of my "Challenge to Science" series of posts:

Challenge to Science III: The "gods", the design, and man"

The hard truth is, the incompetent climate science is just the tip of the iceberg, and the world is in real trouble, with scientists deluded by unquestioned dogma (incompetent fundamental theories and assumptions) on all fronts. My independent research, going back to the mid-1990's, has opened the door to a new paradigm--the once and future paradigm of deliberate past re-formation (re-design) of the Earth and solar system. Modern students of science have been taught to fear the abuses of religion, and have thereby been cut off from the shards of wisdom that anciently could only have been passed down, in a barbaric time of no books and no real science, in religious metaphor (the earliest myths of the world, about the "gods" and their Earth-shaping deeds). So what may appear to be merely a monumental screw-up by climate scientists is really only one symptom of a culminating disintegration of science, with as yet no sign that my work will be heeded and the new true paradigm properly ensconced among the academics and other professional truthseekers. On the other side of the present troubles lies brilliant new understanding of age-old mysteries--but the world has to be led out of the obstinately-clasped darkness of mass scientific delusion, that has been moving toward culmination throughout our lifetimes.

Man Vs. Gods: Designs Big and Small, and Whose Will Likely Win Out In The End

The Real-Science site has a post entitled "Politicians on Opposite Sides of Reality", which deals with the same idea as the old story of the blind men and the elephant (remember, each man only felt a different portion of the elephant, so none of them could agree upon what it was they were encountering). I respond here, from a slightly higher perspective:

Self-love (which the author bemoans as the overweening vice of mankind) is not a vice per se, because it is just a very small step away from the greater realization that it took a God to make such a wonderful being as man--unless you actively ban the idea of God, as modern scientists are enjoined to do by the "consensus" (which has been failing ever since Darwin). Still, reality is not just a matter of man and God, because the "gods", known from all the world's oldest "myths", actually existed, and in fact re-made the world and the solar system, to a coherent design, with an undying (and encyclopedic) message for mankind on Earth--and barely 20,000 years ago, as my unprecedented research has proven.

The author writes, "I am starting to think this series of winters is not a coincidence." No, nothing about the trials currently occurring among men is a coincidence. The basically ignorant and petty designs of men like Obama and the Insane Left, or the perennially clueless designs of the Conservatives, are no more adequate to address the greater design, than is climate science, to address the reality of Earth's climate. (But beware of over-thinking, or striving for the ultimate answer: The meaning of the "series of winters" of unusually heavy snows is most likely just a reminder that the globe is not undergoing runaway warming, after all--a hint, that is all, to let go of the incompetent "consensus" that has suborned all of our institutions, in favor of understanding of a more benign reality--and, of course, to hint, for one's future understanding, that it was designed, after all, and that even the "experts" have become far too free with their lazy judgments of "coincidence"). What is going on is a general testing of man, and his many divisive, and false, dogmas. There are no experts now; there are only men and women who are honest professionals, or not...competent, or not.

Dogma, Not Reason, Rules Today

Dogma (in the form of unquestioned and unquestionable theory) has ruled the climate debate for over 20 years now. It is, in fact, at its worst right now, as the public is being bombarded with fraudulent stories about runaway global warming.

The following statement, taken from a "basic climatology text", was included in a comment on the Real Science site:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/ocean_warm_and_cool.pdf

Dr. Robert E. Stevenson SOME BASICS OF MARINE CLIMATOLOGY

“The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being significantly warmed by sunlight alone."

But it is not so. My Venus/Earth tropospheric temperatures comparison definitively shows that both Venus and Earth atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation (in the infrared), not from the planetary surface. And the famous Kiehl-Trenberth (1997) "earth energy budget" -- which can be seen in my article, "Runaway Global Warming is Scientific Hysteria" -- shows that the atmosphere is NOT "transparent to direct solar radiation", but absorbs some 19.5% of it. About 8%, comprising the solar ultraviolet radiation, is stopped in the stratosphere, which leaves some 11.5% absorbed in the lower atmosphere (throughout the troposphere, including the near-surface atmosphere). So the "basic texts" are wrong on a fundamental point, and more than one generation of scientists has simply been miseducated. (That one group of climate scientists should know that the atmosphere is not transparent to solar infrared radiation, yet everyone still thinks it is, is like different U.S. intelligence agencies not talking to each other about imminent terrorist threats: Simply unthinkable, to a rational person.)

All of our institutions -- scientific, political, and the media -- have been suborned to a false and incompetent climate science "consensus" story, of unstable, runaway climate. The intellectual rot is far advanced, and deluding yet another generation of the best and the brightest young minds right now. This is the gravest of threats in the world today.

Solar (UV) Variation and Terrestrial Climate

"Simplify, simplify!" is the famous admonition to writers, in Strunk and White's "Elements of Style". It should equally be taught to students of physical science, as the necessary tool of every good scientist.

The following is my response to an article on "Solar Variation and Terrestrial Climate" at the climaterealists site, in which the subject of simplicity of hypotheses came up:

"Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality."

Yes -- the examples given above, and the "busy" yet strangely irrelevant "Atmospheric Structure" figure (which doesn't even include UV, but only cosmic rays and solar protons) well demonstrate the incompetence of scientists today. Obviously, if the temperature lapse rate (decreasing temperature with increasing depth) in the stratosphere is due to the decreasing effect (molecular smashing) of UV absorption with increasing depth, and the tropopause merely marks the altitude (or altitude range) of balance between the opposing lapse rates of stratosphere and troposphere, then the first hypothesis that needs to be considered is that an increase in solar UV would tend to force the tropopause (whose temperature would be a constant, -53°C) closer to the Earth's surface, thus decreasing the temperature at the surface (and a decrease in that UV would act to increase the surface temperature). Even if that hypothesis is quite wrong, it needs to be aired, and aired FIRST, in a public forum like this.

Of course, it also needs to be emphasized, yet again, that my view is that of the independent scientist who did the first proper Venus/Earth comparison of temperatures (fully 19 years after the necessary Venus data was obtained, and before any climate "expert" apparently--since it is so easy--even thought of doing it):

Venus: No Greenhouse Effect