Thursday, May 25, 2017

No Clear Thinking Among "Climate" Scientists

I have submitted the following comment to a post about the "global warming pause" on Dr. Roy Spencer's site (the link may not work, if Dr. Spencer did not allow it to appear):

"...when the next big warm El Nino occurs, the zero trend will end. And that’s exactly what happened, with the 2015-16 El Nino. A trend is very sensitive to what happens at the end of a time series, and a big (natural) warm blip from El Nino is just what the doctor ordered. No more zero trend."


"You can’t build a case for human-caused warming by relying on natural warming!"

Dr. Spencer thinks the mere appearance of an El Nino ends the zero trend; but, generally speaking, that would depend upon what the temperature does after the end of the El Nino. If it goes right back to the "zero trend" level, then the zero trend continues; the El Nino is then just a bump in the road, soon enough forgotten. And as others have pointed out, the 2015-16 El Nino did not cause temperature to go higher than the 1998 one did (which is comparing "oranges to oranges", i.e. the maximum temperature at successive El Ninos, not the rise of a given El Nino compared to the trend preceding it, or succeeding it for that matter).

And "you can't build a case for human-caused warming by relying on natural warming" logically implies you can't build a case (for human-caused warming from observation of the "end of the zero trend") by relying on the temporary natural warming due to an El Nino.

So the two quotes of Dr. Spencer's above are at odds with one another. The first should be recognized as generally not true (unless the world does not recover from the El Nino; and though I stopped following the temperature reports, I don't believe the current 0.27 C anomaly reported here is significantly above the "zero trend" level of recent years, as the 0.8+ of the El Nino surely was, but it's obviously now gone).

Just stop saying the zero trend, or "global warming pause", is over.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Who--or What--Is the "Fittest"?

I have submitted the following comment, on the American Thinker site, in answer to another commenter who took me to task for my claim that the idea of "survival of the fittest" is a dead-end, false dogma for mankind:

Every tyrant, so long as he is on top, can claim to be the "fittest". It is also known as "might makes right". Except the tyrant, even if he dies of old age, is NOT the fittest in the hearts and minds of all those he oppresses; and might does NOT make right--I am SURE you know that, though you might be inclined to deny it here.

In the end, who decides who--or what--is the "fittest"? Hitler was sure he knew, and how many people died in World War II because he was wrong (50, 60, 80 million, I don't remember)? America allowed slavery of blacks when it was first founded, because many in positions of influence and power believed THEY knew who was fittest (because they "knew" blacks were not), and that is still biting America where it hurts most.

In science, Darwin and his theory of undirected evolution (the very source of the phrase, and of today's idea, of "survival of the fittest") is taken--by the overwhelming, almost universal consensus--to be one of the fittest of theories; it governs and guides not just the life sciences but all the earth sciences too, as if the Earth just happened to "evolve", from gases and rocks thrown together in space, into the miracle of separate continents, ocean(s), environments and climates, supporting both animal and plant life, and both land and ocean life, in amazing diversity, in something that looks very much like harmony (ohmigod).

But Darwin was wrong, and all of the earth and life sciences that rely upon his theory are wrong, precisely to the extent that they do so rely on it (they are not wrong, precisely to the extent they recognize design, and study to know it, as the natural philosophers, like Leonardo da Vinci, who preceded them did). Science doesn't know this yet, but this scientist does, as no other scientist does, even the "creationists" and the "Intelligent Design" followers. As a hard scientist--a physicist--I have made the greatest discovery in history. I call it "the Great Design of the 'gods' ", and it is pretty much all-encompassing, being a physical design imposed upon the entire surface of the Earth, as well as, in the intellectual sphere. the original motivation for all the "ancient mysteries" you may read about, or see discussed on TV. It is in fact the single, until-now-hidden, source of all of mankind's earliest beliefs, and how they developed throughout succeeding history. So I speak as the discoverer of the next paradigm, that WILL replace the Darwinian paradigm that has ruled since his day.

Saturday, April 29, 2017

This Age of Scientific Dogmatism

I have made two comments to an American Thinker article, "The Left's Vicious Intolerance In Science".

I'll just say here that arguing about science is not science. I am a scientist, by the way--in fact, THE scientist, who has made the greatest discovery in history--directly impacting every field of human inquiry--which few in our time, on either the Left or the Right--or the middle, for that matter--have shown themselves willing to respectfully consider. No surprise there, it has been ever thus; ask Galileo (and I sometimes call myself the Galileo of this time). There is so much incompetence, all around, even in this "advanced", "thoroughly modern" age, because we are living in a climactic time, of ascendance of false, divisive dogma over good, honest reason.

Know therefore, that you and all around you are being tested, with the consequences of such long-nurtured dogma, even as new, inevitably liberating knowledge will--in the next few generations if not this one--change what for you have been all-too-comfortable certainties, about what is and is not true science.


Scientific consensus notably hardened into dogmatic, religiously-held beliefs in then currently fashionable theories, across many fields, around 1970-1980. It has not been true science since that time, and for many, long before (as far back as Darwin, for the more devout followers of undirected evolution, who have made careers out of refusing to consider all the evidence against it). As a scientist, I never blamed that obscene (to this scientist) hardening of scientific thought on the Left--but they have latched on to the dogmatic certainty, the belief in "the Consensus", in many fields, not just in science (the "civil-rights" movement for Blacks, with its defining of "racism" as White racism, is another outstanding example). And it has made them insane now, under the likes of Obama. They have built their intended legacy on untruths, and the consequences will be devastating.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

On "Global Warming: Science or Dogma?"

I have submitted the following comment to an article, "Global Warming: Science or Dogma" on the American Thinker site, in response to other comments there which hew to the dogma that there is a CO2 (carbon dioxide) greenhouse effect in the atmosphere:

Those scientists who think they are experts in talking about CO2 absorption of radiation from the planetary surface are over-educated and mis-educated. The point that any such "experts" need to understand is that such absorption is just one pathway by which heat is transferred from the surface of the planet to outer space. Heat is transferred not just by radiation, but by conduction and convection, and it is a BULK, macroscopic process, not a molecular, much less quantum, process. What governs the global mean surface temperature (and that at any other pressure level in the lower atmosphere, the troposphere) is the weight of the atmosphere above any level, pressing down on that level: Overall, the pressure at any level is due to the weight of the atmosphere above that level; this is called the hydrostatic condition, as it is the same condition in a static column of water. The global mean temperature has nothing at all to do with CO2 or any other constituent of the atmosphere, it is controlled, essentially, solely by the hydrostatic condition, the height (or total mass) of the atmosphere, and the intensity of incident solar radiation. The atmosphere is not even warmed by the heated planetary surface, on the global scale (uneven surface heating only drives the transient WEATHER patterns over the globe, not the global mean temperature) as all of the "experts" have been miseducated to believe, but by direct absorption of incident solar radiation and downward transfer of heat by CONDUCTION (not radiation at all, note), as strictly enforced by the hydrostatic condition (that means it happens very fast, through uncounted molecular collisions), so CO2 absorption of long wavelength radiation from the surface is doubly irrelevant. No "expert", on either side of the climate debate/war, wants to have anything to do with that explanation, it is too alien to the accepted dogma. But the real, true science is simple and easy, not complicated and contrived. This is why I have continually written, "There is no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists", ever since my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison of November 2010. There is NO global-warming "greenhouse effect".

Saturday, March 25, 2017

The Science Is Not Just Not Settled; It Is False

The American Thinker site has an article, "The Science Is Settled, So Shut Up", referring to the climate alarmism on the political Left, and its tyrannous consequences, but also bringing in other political debates over science. My response:

False dogma is generally ascendant over true reason now. That is why we see evolution and sexual orientation aguments intruding into the debate over climate science. And it is not just the Left vs. Right, it is just that the Left has taken the politically correct, consensus position in every confrontation, while the Right is more open to alternative reasonable views. This is actually a disease on the Left, as the consensus ideas, or reigning dogmas, in so many fields today, are wrong, despite the false dogmas having been nurtured for a long time, in science and in wider society. Darwin set science on the wrong path of denying design of the natural world over 150 years ago, and Agassiz contributed with his theories of past ice ages, which led directly to the false "greenhouse effect" in an attempt to explain a false paradigm of "global climate change"; Milankovitch furthered the miseducation of scientists by supposing recurring changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of its spin axis; and the followers of Alfred Wegener overreached, and turned further from the truth, in the 1960s, by "explaining" past continental movements as due to ongoing global "plate tectonics".

Virtually everything scientists so confidently assert as fact in the earth and life sciences today is not only not settled, it is false. There is no undirected, Darwinian evolution; there have been no naturally-occurring ice ages; the Earth's orbit does not change as Milankovitch supposed; the continents were not moved to their present forms and positions by plate tectonics; and there is no valid global climate science being taught.

On the other hand, all religions today are full of myth, not sure knowledge, insofar as they tell stories about the pre-historic past, before events were written down as they happened, according to living witnesses to the events.

So they are no substitute for true science, and that cannot be overemphasized. It is no use trying to go back to ancient religious dogmas to counter the dogmas in modern science.

My research into the so-called "ancient mysteries", undertaken as a modern physicist and to the highest standards of true science, has uncovered the fact--not theory, not ancient religious dogma, not freely-imagined speculation--that a great design WAS imposed upon the Earth, between roughly 20,000 and 10,000 years ago (so modern geology itself is only right about the last 10,000 years or so; it cannot be trusted farther back than that). That design establishes what I wrote above, about the falseness in all the earth and life sciences, due to the false paradigm--the false dogma--they have slavishly followed.

In this, I write as the Copernicus, or Galileo, of this time, informing of a new understanding of the world, its motions in space, and the late origin of its present conditions, only a few tens of thousands, not hundreds of millions, of years ago.

Between the dogmatic scientists and the dogmatic religionists, few want to confront this new knowledge. But all who can see, can see from present debates and wars that such knowledge is very much needed. Without it, everyone is blind, on both sides of every debate about the physical world.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Marching For Dogma

This will be a very short post, as I see no real good in arguing at length with the deeply deluded. This is just a succinct reminder of the truth so many refuse to confront now.

Judith Curry has a post on "What Are Scientists Marching For?". (There is going to be a march on Washington around April 22nd, basically in hysterical protest over the new President and what they so deludedly think he represents, along the lines of "anti-science".) My response:

They will be marching in defense of dogma, that is all--and specifically, false dogma (not science at all). They will also be marching in favor of unabashed tyranny over critics of their dogma (which they believe, religiously but falsely, to be science). This is all about defending what is in fact a general incompetence among today's scientists, the false paradigm that gave rise to that incompetence, and all the false theories--false speculative structures--they have built up in their minds (and in peer-reviewed papers, and books, and countless lectures), based upon that false paradigm.

Actually, I have let myself go on too long here. I meant only to say, "They will be marching in defense of dogma over good, honest reason," and leave it at that. But again, I have to immediately add, "and for the tyranny that is always needed to sustain false dogma."

Now look, I have said it twice. Words all over the place, and to what end? They WILL NOT listen. They have a million, a billion, a trillion times as many words, saying the opposite. How does a generation take stock, and unlearn a century and a half of false dogma and misdirected scientific effort? In the end, they must confront revolutionary new knowledge and a new, truer paradigm--the Great Design of the "gods"--that's how.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Layers of Belief: Political, Religious, and Scientific Dogma

I have submitted the following comment to the American Thinker site, to an article on the "causes of scientific decline in American academia". The article imputes the decline to Leftist beliefs and actions.:

Left (versus Right) is just the top, political, layer. Underneath that is the atheist (versus spiritual believer) religious belief system. And under that, at bottom (in the context of science and scientists), is an undirected-evolution (versus deliberate design) paradigm (or fundamental, unquestioned assumption) directing scientific research. The underlying cause of scientific decline is the miseducation of scientists, ever since Darwin, that the world as we now observe it came about through undirected physical processes alone (with, in the case of living things, the addition of an all-powerful but basically undefined "natural selection", to supply the obviously necessary direction displayed by it all; note, in the case of non-living things--the world that sustains life--scientists don't even have a "natural selection" deity to "explain" its amazing construction and harmonious working order, of land and ocean, mountains and valleys, rivers, rock of all kinds and sizes--and thus uses--and above all life-nutrient soil).

At bottom, the problem is a failing scientific paradigm, increasingly unnoticed by scientists--pursuing their unquestioned, uniformitarian evolution paradigm--for the past 130 to 160 years. I call this paradigm--which covers the non-living world, in addition to the living--the extended Darwinian paradigm. I don't even know if I invented the term or not, as I have not seen it used by other scientists for as long as I remember (nor have I gone looking for it); it comes naturally out of recognizing that earth scientists--for example, geologists--assume, just as biologists and other life scientists do, that what they observe is the result of undirected physical processes alone. The same guiding assumption, in both the life and earth sciences--and false.

Other critics of evolution can only approach this tangentially, in the context of creationism or "Intelligent Design" theory. I am the only scientist in the world who can confront it head-on, without theory, with new, revolutionary knowledge, independent of any prior belief system known to modern man, gained through dispassionate research, discovery, and verification, to the highest scientific standards for certainty, along every line of study.