Thursday, July 13, 2017

The Secret Reason for White-Hot Rhetoric Today



The fabiusmaximus site has a post on "The Secret Reason For Hot Political Rhetoric", and the following was my response, which goes to the heart of the problem--not just political--as enlightened by my discovery of the re-formation and design of the Earth's surface by the "gods" of ancient "myth":

There is some truth in laying the problem on "tribalism" (which is a clue that the past is the key to the present), but that is focusing on the symptoms, not the disease. The same criticism applies to your proposition that the Democrats and Republicans are coming together, towards a "unified ruling class", and the citizenry then becoming "apathetic and passive". The question is "Why", in both cases.

The reason for these symptoms, however, is simple: Dogma over reason, leading to a crisis of general incompetence in judgment. The truth is that divisive, false dogmas have been too long nurtured, by the various factions and groups in our societies. This is now a climactic time, when these chickens have come home to roost as it were, and adherence to one's favorite dogma(s) is ascendant over competent reason, on every front, in every confrontation. Thus, emotions rule. As a "hard" scientist--a physicist by education and long experience--I first identified this general incompetence within science itself, after making a revolutionary discovery that falsifies the very paradigm by which science has sought to advance ever since Darwin--that paradigm being undirected evolution of all that science observes in the world. Having made that discovery, I sought to bring it out to the world, only to find the world reacting with determined avoidance behavior, that increased the more I tried, even to the "white-hot" stage you refer to in the political discourse. (No, I'm not saying the white-hot political rhetoric is in reaction to my efforts to be heard; I'm saying it is due to avoidance behavior, primarily on the Left, against anyone trying to bring out the truth in any given situation--the Democrats have been fiercely battling any recognition of the truth throughout the Obama presidency years, for which I have been calling them the Insane Left for most if not all of that time. "White-hot" rhetoric, blatantly false, and perverse (as they have only been painting themselves into a smaller and smaller corner, trying to promulgate and defend what cannot be truthfully defended), is all the Insane Left seems able to call forth now.

But add in the stealth bipartisanship shown by the Republicans, and the resulting disconnect (ever deeper, ever wider) between the two parties and their "constituents"--the people, who don't like what their representatives are doing--and one can see it is not just the Left that is insane today, i.e., determinedly, obsessively avoiding the truth.

The preferred dogmas of that "unified ruling class" are, increasingly, simply not those of the people being misled.

The problem is too-long nurtured false dogmas, some for decades, others for generations, the worst throughout known history. This is a climactic time, and a hard test for all mankind. Because, finally, new knowledge needs to be properly confronted, and accepted by all, and very few are ready to do it.

Monday, July 10, 2017

The True Origin of Inalienable Rights



The American Thinker site has a post which brought up the subject of "inalienable rights of the individual" (but only in terms of "property rights"). This subject comes under the heading of the "philosophy of science", particularly as newly enlightened by my discovery of the Great Design of the "gods". My response, then:

I think it is not about "property" rights, more like "appropriate" rights. There is a widely known old military saying, "Rank has its privileges", which not so many people know has a second part, "because rank has its responsibilities". So the individual has its inalienable rights, because it has its inherent responsibility, to choose its way, literally from one moment to the next, in matters large and small. (Ha-ha...I just chose to refer to the individual as "it", rather than as "he", or even "he/she". You can't get away from choosing what to do next, and you have to live with the consequences of your choosing.)

At the root of all our problems is the fact that we are not physical creatures alone; we are spirits occupying physical bodies (and in a degraded condition, because we do not KNOW, from moment to moment, that we are not just physical bodies, taking up space). We are spirit inhabiting body; and mind, or intelligent reasoning, is the bridge between the two, and our defining essence. Our inalienable human rights come from our essential being as mind, inhabiting and acting through matter, and our personal responsibility to direct that matter, our bodies. A collective or societal government cannot walk for me, or talk for me; I have to do it. I also have to decide whether I want to buy "health insurance" for this body, given my financial situation or any other considerations I may choose.

My rights, and everyone else's, are inalienable, because they are prior to any consideration of our limited physical existence. At bottom, mind is prior to matter, and the unit of mind, the individual, is prior to the state and any power we may collectively grant it. Put another way, intelligence, good reason--and the universal meaningfulness, or coherence, that underlies good reason and is evinced by it (and which we, as benighted children of our spiritual father, call God)--flows fundamentally and unavoidably through me (and you), the "units" of mind, and that makes us individually responsible.

Monday, June 12, 2017

The Bigotry of Radiative Transfer Believers



I received the following comment this morning, submitted to the November 2010 "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" post. The commenter was apparently too impatient to notice that comments were closed to that post a long time ago, and readers directed to submit any further comments to the May 2015 "Venus No Greenhouse Effect Comments Overflow" post.

From "Anonymous":

"I suspect you got no response because it's pseudoscience crap.

Try this instead: https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf "

This is the work of a bigot, and an immature or easily-unhinged mind; for the Venus/Earth comparison I performed is a presentation of fact, which cannot be equated with pseudoscience. It shows that one can use the Standard Model of the Earth's atmosphere to accurately predict the temperatures in the Venus atmosphere, over the full range of pressures found in the Earth's troposphere.

That is a clear fact, that immediately and clearly indicates that the physics enshrined in the Standard Atmosphere model is the ruling physics for Venus's atmosphere as well. There are two exceedingly good reasons for this: First, Venus's atmosphere differs hugely from Earth's atmosphere, in several ways, that are each presumed by climate scientists to have their own individual effects upon the temperature, but which in reality do not have any effect whatsoever, as only the distance from the Sun is shown to account for the difference in temperature in the two atmospheres, at a given Earth tropospheric pressure.

When an entire set of supposedly potent conditions is shown to have no effect, the overwhelming probability is that none of those conditions has any effect; the alternative is that their various effects cancel one another almost exactly, and that is highly unlikely, increasingly so with the number of conditions considered, and with some supposedly having additive effect (e.g., the "greenhouse effect" of increasing carbon dioxide) while others have a multiplicative effect (e.g., the albedo, or fraction of incident solar radiation reflected rather than absorbed).

The second reason to put one's money on the physics of the Standard Atmosphere is because it is simplicity itself, compared to the "greenhouse effect". I have written about this many times over the last 6 and 1/2 years, and won't do it again for this post.

These two reasons are why, from the day I first performed the Venus/Earth comparison, I have maintained that that comparison definitively separates the competent from the incompetent among scientists studying climate theory. I always will so maintain it.

Now, I see that the anonymous commenter referenced a Physics Today paper, from 2011 apparently. And I happen to remember--without even bothering to use the commenter's link--that the January 2011 issue of Physics Today contains a paper by Raymond Pierrehumbert, steadfastly asserting the radiative "greenhouse" effect to be "unassailable". I have, of course, assailed it many times.

It is therefore obvious, to me (especially in the present intellectual atmosphere, of "true believers" in false dogma doubling down on their longtime attempted suppression of critics), that Mr. Pierrehumbert himself is probably the author of that comment. Or perhaps it is after all only an obsessively loyal follower of his cult (of "atmospheric warming by radiative transfer within it").

You will get nowhere with me, Mr. Pierrehumbert. I consider you a humbug (no, no "Dr." for you), and your radiative theory incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial to the warming of the atmosphere.

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."

Yet,

"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.

and

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".