Monday, January 2, 2017
I submitted a comment this morning on the American Thinker site, in response to another comment there which stated that "Communism is a religion." I wanted to distinguish between a "religion" (an institutionalized set of beliefs about God and man's relation to Him/Her--ancient man at one time worshipped the Goddess as the Highest) and "religiously-held ideas" (which includes those that do not purport to come from God, but are held inviolable, unquestionable, by their believers). Because false, divisive (to the point of war) dogmas are showing themselves generally ascendant over honest reason in the world now, I also wanted to inform of one or two points my research and discoveries have led me to uncover about the development of the idea and practice of religion among men--the history of religion--and which I think modern man needs to be aware of, for the sake of truth itself and for a thorough, competent understanding of the all-encompassing "Great Design" I found, which began and, for most of history, directed it all.
We are getting into needing to distinguish between religion and good old-fashioned, unquestioned dogma. The latter is rampant in the world today--many, inherently divisive, dogmas abound--and includes, but is not limited to, the dogmas of the various religions. A religiously-held dogma can be just as bad, but not the same thing, as a religious dogma (which purports to come from God). As someone just pointed out above, Islam is not a MORAL religion in the sense of modern Christianity, and is basically a cult of lies, claiming to rule--by coercion, not reason or faith--over every aspect of human life; as such, it is really a throwback to ancient religions, which WERE immoral, coercive state religions (based upon fear of the "jealous and capricious gods" like Zeus, and maintained by "god-kings", ruling by "divine right"). In contrast, modern religion, as a system teaching positive morals rather than "fear of the Lord", was reborn only in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC, in reaction to the hideous outrages of one ravaging Empire after another, through most of that time. The separation of Church and State in the late-appearing U.S.A. is a huge advance in human civilization, and I believe is in fact the proper basis for "U.S. exceptionalism"; it allows for the very flowering of the "inalienable rights" of man.
Communism is not a religion, it is a religiously-held ideology or philosophy (although the latter word, meaning "love of knowledge", is a ridiculous, pretentious title to give to communism).
The person who I was responding to responded in turn--and predictably, by insisting upon his dogma, thereby unintentionally underlining my point, that dogma is ascendant over honest reason today.
Friday, December 30, 2016
The election of Donald Trump should herald the dismemberment of the political alarmism over so-called global warming, but it does not begin to address the underlying problem, of gross incompetence in science today. As I have tried to inform everyone, there is no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists -- and the incompetence in climate science is just the tip of the iceberg in science today, across the board. I originally wrote the following comment for a Jo Nova post in October 2011 (this was before I began saving links, so I can't put one here). My comment was specifically in response to a statement that it is so hard to get people to listen to "climate skeptics", and critically question the alarmists, because "The key is that so many benefit from the status-quo...":
That explanation is far downstream from the real cause: Dogma in science--the dogma that the fundamental theories of today are established facts. Even climate consensus skeptics don't realize it is just as bad throughout the earth and life sciences. The problem is that you can't correct climate science without first showing where it fails; there are too many bringing forth alternative theories, when everyone first needs to agree on the obvious errors in consensus theory (in climate, that means the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the radiation transfer theory that has thoughtlessly defined a stable climate system as just the opposite, one balanced on a knife edge, that can be overwhelmed by 0.04% of a gas necessary for all the life on Earth). The earth and life sciences are riddled with fundamental errors, precisely due to the dogmatic, rather than evidential, nature of their underpinning assumptions. It is all speculation piled upon unsupported assumptions, in the very foundations where they remain unquestioned, and an essentially religious belief (i.e., a hotly defensive, emotionally biased belief, inculcated from youth in every school) is the life's blood that sustains the illusion throughout society, and at the highest levels of authority and responsibility. I see people criticising the climate consensus on the basis of the Milankovitch theory, not realizing the latter is just as wrong-headed as the former. I see skeptics calling critics of evolution theory names, and dismissing them, without realizing that they are acting just like the defenders of "runaway climate". The problem is incompetence in all of science today, due precisely to unquestioned belief in ideas that, fundamentally, are just as wrong-headed as those which Aristotle used to hold up the development of science for 2,000 years (and Darwin's idea--basically just against design in the natural world--has set science on a dead end street for the last 150 years). The climate science mess is just the latest, harshest eruption of the consequences of unquestioned and unsupported dogma in the foundations of modern science. Don't try to judge, from a position of ignorance. Be humble, and self-disciplined, and learn. That is the lesson for our time (or, more likely now, the lesson OF our time, for those who come after).
Thursday, December 8, 2016
A few days ago (actually, on November 13th, so not just a few days ago) I wrote the following comment on the American Thinker site, to an article about "Trump and Hillary on Climate". (Mine was a scientific comment, the site and the article are political. I don't argue politics here, I am a scientist who tries to inform, even in the current general insanity.) I would not be bringing this up here, except that yesterday I visited the Climate Etc. site of Dr. Judith Curry, and read a comment there that led me to ask the question in the title of this post. The comment stated--with utter assurance, of course--that the global mean surface temperature (and "global warming" too, if my memory serves) has nothing to do with climate. Since I have been trying for a long time to inform everyone, in my own posts and in comments elsewhere, that there is a difference between what they appear to mean by "climate" and what I take to be the "global climate"--just that which is in fact claimed by the alarmists to change with "global warming"--here is my American Thinker comment (it would be a minor miracle if any of the regular members of Dr. Curry's ongoing "sociology of climate" therapy sessions--the Climate Etc. site, I mean--were to read this and take it to heart; the insanity is too entrenched in them). My comment began by responding to another comment that the climate alarmism was a "scam".:
On the political side, it was a scam, and even more, a criminal conspiracy, as is evident from the Democratic Party Platform specifically calling for suppression of "climate skeptics", taking away their very right to free speech in the public discourse.
On the science side, it should be emphasized that the incompetence of the scientists and the rise of false theories initiated and still maintain the political alarmism. Nothing illustrates this more forcefully than the line in the above article that climate is "the weather conditions prevailing in an area", while as Kwan's comment illustrates, people are induced to believe in "global warming", which is not "in an area" but a global average. Climate as "the weather...prevailing in an area" varies hugely over the Earth, from tropical heat to polar cold, and from desert dryness to rainforest wetness; but the global "climate", as defined by the global mean surface temperature, it turns out is quite stable--varying by no more than one-half to one degree centigrade, over any time scale--and its precise value is due only to our distance from the Sun and the thickness of our atmosphere. Even the difference in temperature between night and day, and the difference in the seasons, does not affect the global average temperature, because night and day are not global but hemispheric, and the same for the seasons (which are reversed between the north and south hemispheres).
The political alarmists, from Obama on down, changed the talking point from "global warming" to "climate change" when it became widely known that there has been an extended "global warming pause" in which the global mean surface temperature has clearly not been increasing, even according to the climate scientists' fraudulently "adjusted" temperature data. Even their calling it a "pause" in global warming, rather than the disproof of the global warming theory that it is, showed their fraudulent, unscientific bias and their willingness to lie to the public to control any public debate. This lie is on a par with the Benghazi lie, that the attack was a reaction to an anti-Muslim video.
The climate in an area can change, but the global "climate" is precisely fixed, utterly stable (as my own 2010 article, "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" makes clear, to any competent scientist and hopefully to any lay reader, who I wrote it for).
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
[This is an article I originally wrote for Newsblaze.com back in June 2009, and I have since referenced it many times on the internet, most recently in my September 6th post here, "Undirected Evolution: The False Religious Dogma Strangling Science". I wrote it in an "entertaining" style, for Newsblaze's broad, lay audience.]
I don't know where you stand, dear reader, on the subject of whether or not our world shows deliberate design, but I can tell you something you may not know, because science absolutely refuses to admit it -- to the public and to itself: There is positive evidence of design, and not chance, going on out there.
This is not the most popular tack for a writer -- even a scientist like myself -- to take today. It's true a steady 40% of the country feels comfortable telling pollsters they don't believe in the evolution theory science insists upon, which pointedly denies any design in the natural world (and which, ironically, is partly based on the evidence of domestic breeding, which are the designs of man, of course). But when it involves strong argument, the country tends to split right down the middle, so I think only about half of the 40% who really believe in design in the natural world want to see it brought up again here. So I'm probably ticking off 80% of my readers, and I'll just quote Phoebe Buffet (of Friends) and say brightly: "Okay... let's do it!"
One of the most outstanding indications of a deliberate design actually lies a short way out in space, with our nearest neighbor, the Moon. The Moon is about 240,000 miles from the Earth on average. Its diameter is 2160 miles, and it subtends an angle of 0.527 degrees, on average, as seen from the Earth. That's about the apparent size of a dime seen from 6 feet away.
The Sun is about 93 million miles away, and about 865,000 miles in diameter. It's average apparent diameter, seen from the Earth, is 0.533 degrees. Compare that to the Moon's 0.527 degrees. They're essentially the same, 0.53 degrees across. That's why a total solar eclipse is possible: The Moon is precisely the right apparent size. Put another way, the Moon is at precisely the right distance from the Earth, on average, to totally eclipse the Sun.
Now, in a solar system littered with moons -- 135 of them the last time I checked -- our Moon is the only one that is both perfectly round and anywhere near the right size to precisely eclipse the Sun, as seen from its mother planet. And it does it precisely, on a precisely repeating cycle, like nothing less than a cleverly-designed clockwork. Most scientists brush off the Moon, and its clockwork, as a "cosmic coincidence". Ancient man was properly and reasonably awed by it. As a competent mathematical scientist, I am awed by it.
The Moon, the experts say with the absolute confidence of exacting research and extensive calculations, was blasted out of the Earth itself, very early in the history of Earth's development. The Moon is still receding from the Earth, very slowly, they say. So it wasn't always at just the right distance to totally eclipse the Sun, as it is now. This makes it even more astounding that, just by chance, after nearly 4.5 billion years of slow recession from the Earth, it should be at just the right distance from the Earth, throughout the recorded history of man (the last 6,000 years or so), to so precisely match the Sun in the sky, and figure so prominently in ancient man's religiously-held beliefs.
Furthermore, the Moon goes through phases, from new to full and back again, every month. (That's why we call it a "month"; it's a "moonth" -- "moon's" -- period, get it? Well, I bet 20% of you do.) These phases mimic the progression of a total eclipse, and underscore the total eclipse as the single recognizable theme of the Moon's design. Because that's what this "cosmic coincidence" obviously is, a deliberate design, made with deliberate intent: To emphasize, and memorialize, the total eclipse -- as a once-upon-a-time catastrophic extinguishing of the Sun's light by another body, perhaps. When the Sun "died", as the world's myths in fact claimed. That's why the eclipse was universally feared, up to modern times. (In the Norse myths, at Ragnarok the Sun was overtaken and eaten by a "wolf"; in the Greek, the Sun's chariot was driven out of its accustomed path by Phaethon, the Sun god's son, who was hurled down to destruction -- and in both accounts, the surface of the Earth was largely burned up.)
Ancient man knew something of this memorial, as a "sacred truth" never to be forgotten. He made calendars of the year according to the Moon's motion through the sky -- though that motion does not harmonize well with the true length of the year -- and some are still in use (the Jewish and Muslim calendars, for example). Is that creepy, or what?
Monday, October 31, 2016
The wuwt site has a post on "Science is in deep trouble...", concerning the sorry consensus-defending state of peer-review and the wider world's mistaken reliance on it as the arbiter of scientific truth. One comment questioned the post, by falsely questioning the author's (Donna Laframboise, I think) qualifications, not her points; I consider that avoidance behavior, and my response is:
The system is broken and truth is where you find it. Those who follow their favorite prejudice, or dogma, rather than seeking the truth, wherever it lies, will not recognize the truth as such even when it is presented to them, already found and perfectly clear.*** Instead, they bolt for the nearest rationalization for not confronting the truth and accepting it through honest reason. Dogma is ascendant over honest reason in the world today, as never before (because the rot is so universal today, not just political or religious, as in the past). The very paradigms (the fundamental assumptions)--by which the people come to, and hold to, their beliefs in this time (in politics, in religion, in science, in society and civilization itself)--are being strained beyond their natural limits, and visibly failing, for those with eyes to see. The underlying problem is unquestioned dogmas, in every field of human endeavor, too long nurtured and by now too strongly believed by too many to be questioned by all (and thrown out) as they should be.
*** The most obvious example right now: Those who will vote for Hillary Clinton believe the system is working tolerably well and want it to continue as it is, while those who will vote for Trump see that it is fundamentally broken and needs immediate fixing. The truth is that, if people want real progress, they will have to change themselves, by letting go of the false dogmas that are now choking the system, in so many ways (as all the insults, dismissals and denials on all sides clearly show).
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
The Dr. Roy Spencer site has a post on "The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Warmer Its Average Temperature". My response:
As I have pointed out many times, for example here: The Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres, over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is essentially explained by the ratio of their solar distances alone (and precisely so both above and below the thick Venus cloud layer), despite a number of large differences in the two planet-plus-atmosphere situations that are assumed by climate scientists and their believers to affect the global mean temperature, but don't(!). (I won't repeat them all here, but Venus has 2400 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as does Earth, with no effect, so the "greenhouse effect" is precisely zero.)
It is quite foolish to take the position that the supposed effects of all those differences between the Venus and Earth atmospheres simply cancel one another out, by "coincidence", entirely, and as precisely as my Venus/Earth comparison indicates they would have to do. I wrote a little about this last April, here. And adding yet another large difference, between Venus and Earth, to the list of supposed causes for their temperature difference, only makes the "coincidence" argument more ridiculous. The reality, that only solar intensity is effective, is quite clear, and quite simply explained, physically, by the hydrostatic condition, as I have written over and over again.
Now Dr. Spencer (who is well respected by the "skeptics" in the climate debates, for his satellite measurements of global temperature, showing little or no global warming) brings up planetary rotation as yet another variable supposedly affecting the global temperature. Yet Earth rotates in 1 day, while Venus rotates in 243 days--yet the Venus/Earth temperature ratio shows that huge difference, just like all the other huge differences between Venus and Earth, has NO EFFECT upon the temperature. The temperature-vs-pressure curves of Venus and Earth are the same, when just their different solar distances are taken into account, and nothing else.
So please, Dr. Spencer, and every other atmospheric or climate scientist, and every other believer in the current climate dogma: "Let go, Luke. Use the Force."
Sunday, September 25, 2016
The tallbloke site has another post on Nikolov and Zeller's "Unified Climate Theory", about a Washington Post interview with Nikolov. Their latest paper was withdrawn (by "common agreement with the authors and editors") because they used pseudonyms to get past the consensus guardians that have long made a mockery of peer review (I gave up on peer review years ago--the defense of scientific dogma is just too strong, and universal). My response (and I have made the following criticisms many times before):
“Common agreement with the authors and editors” is a whitewash. If the paper passed on “scientific merit”, then the editor should have politely explained that they needed to publish the paper with the authors’ real names, and THAT should have been done “by common agreement with the authors and editors”.
Nikolov and Zeller still don’t get it, though:
“It is simply the hydrostatic condition”,
and that has been known for well over a century, in the Standard Atmosphere model, which my 2010 Venus/Earth temperature-vs-pressure comparison precisely confirmed.
And “The results from our empirical data analysis suggest that the thermal effect of the atmosphere is analogous to a compression heating” merely confuses the transient (and local) effect of compression with the constant (and global) effect of the hydrostatic condition (most simply described as “the pressure at any level in the atmosphere is just the weight of the atmosphere above that level”). The Standard Atmosphere, as everyone should know by now (I have been pointing it out for 6 years now), is based upon the hydrostatic condition.
And the figure really does no more than agree with what my Venus/Earth comparison showed more fully and clearly, that those two planets have essentially the same temperature-vs-pressure profile, over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, when only their different distances from the Sun are taken into account. Mars, Moon, and Triton are useless, as the curve is vertical–hence, the “thermal enhancement” is completely indeterminate–for very low surface pressure. I have also pointed out, many times, that the surface temperature of Titan is too low, by about 7K, when compared to Earth in the same way I compared Earth and Venus, and I have given the most likely reason for that (an observed haze in Titan’s atmosphere), while Nikolov and Zeller’s theory cannot even address it (I am surprised they even show Titan as a point off the curve, not on it, since previously they have reported that their theoretical relationship–the curve–predicts precisely the surface temperature of Titan). And Venus’s planet-wide, thick cloud cover does not affect its T-P profile, outside of the clouds themselves, so continually bringing in clouds to explain global temperature variations is also wrong. Sorry, but my Venus/Earth comparison is definitive, and everyone (consensus believer or skeptical critic) will have to admit that in the end.
My Venus/Earth analysis is earlier, better, and more simply and clearly explained, by the hydrostatic condition alone (without any “compressional heating”, which is irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial). The Standard Atmosphere, over a century old, contains that, so their “new understanding” is not new; it has just been ignored, for 2 generations now, by incompetent scientists and unethical politicians bent on world dominion.