Do not shoot the messenger.

[Derek]

We all know shooting the messenger is wrong.
Yet…

The present climate science debates are a CATCH 22 for the messenger of a better understanding of “the science”. This is because both sides of the “official” climate science debates have to shoot such a messenger.
I will try to explain why.

For those who want to suppose,
Let us suppose for discussion purposes that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect (GH). Let us suppose that GH is imaginary, it does not exist. This would also mean that there is no such thing as a Greenhouse gas (GHG), so there would be no need for carbon emission taxes or trading. Our supposed effects upon the GH by GHG emissions being the justification for carbon trading and taxes. Yet the gases do exist and do have radiative abilities. However, if the GH effect they are assumed (ie modelled) to contribute to does not actually exist, then they are merely radiatively able gases, not GHGs.

For those that want to know,
Please see Note 1 at the end of this piece.

If we apply the supposition (or rather knowledge) that there is no GH effect to current climate science debates, then almost immediately, something rather strange, yet undeniable is apparent. The climate science debates (CSDs) literally rage across the internet, on blogs, forums, and websites, whether they be dedicated to, or specifically for climate science or not. In almost every nook and cranny of cyber reality, this debate raises its ugly head. Yet, there generally only appears to be two sides to the debate. In fact, it looks to all the world that “officially” there are only two sides to the climate science debates. There are those who “believe” and those who also “believe” but question some of the figures and data of those who “believe”. This two sided view is reinforced because it appears one simply cannot question the principles of what those who “believe” believe in. THAT is simply not tolerated. Any questioning of the principles is always met swiftly with derision, ridicule, exclusion and quite quickly, excommunication.

In other words, both sides of the “official” climate science debates “believe” in Greenhouse effect theory.

However, any neutral, objective, and unbiased observer would have to concede that there are currently at least three “sides” to the climate science debate.
The three “sides” are
1. The consensus (mainstream orthodoxy)
2. The Lukewarmers (mainstream sceptics)
3. The messengers (radical sceptics)

The first “side” is the mainstream “consensus”, this is the widely accepted and approved of, but most importantly politically correct, climate science. This includes climate modelling, the physics relevant to climatology and particularly radiative physics, as presently taught in all education systems, at all levels, globally. This is the “side” whose views the media unquestioningly and constantly repeat and champion. This is the “side” we have all heard of. This is the “side” we have all had, all but constantly rammed down our throats from being school age and above. This is the “side” whose “science” is used to justify new draconian regulations, rules, laws and taxes. This is the “side” whose “science” helps and empowers environmental groups to use the phrase “save the planet by” whatever their latest wheeze is this week. The greenhouse effect theory is the basis of all this. Without GH there would be very little, if anything at all, climate wise to be alarmed about. Yes, we will have to adapt to whatever changes nature throws at us as we always have, but no greenhouse effect means no anthropogenic global warming, or man made climate change, full stop.

The “consensus” and its members are referred to by many terms. These include “true believers” or simply “believers”, “Warmista”, or “Warmers”. It is not unusual to see them also referred to as the rather extreme sounding, but in many cases actually true, “Climate Nazis” or “Climate Fascists”.

I will use the term “Consensus” for this “side”. Although, it has to be said, for the reasonable mainstream view, the “consensus” has, it would appear, some very extreme and quite anti-human ideas within it. All justified by GH and “saving the planet”.

The second “side” one can not fail to observe are the “main stream sceptics”. This “side” also basically accepts “the science” and “the physics” of the “consensus”. In essence, this “side” is saying that the “consensus” has “the science” fundamentally correct, but the figures used are producing the wrong answers and hence conclusions. Joe Olson coined the phrase “lukewarmers” to describe this “side” of the 2 “sides” of the “official” CSDs. The term has been adopted by many “main stream skeptics”, it is the term I will use for this, the second side in the CSDs.

The “consensus” and the “lukewarmers” are THE 2 sides of the “official” climate science debates. They BOTH do not allow any other side to participate.

The “consensus” uses peer review, peer pressure, job security, career advancement, etc, etc, etc, to exclude any other “side” from any and all CSDs it participates in. The “lukewarmers” use derision and ridicule to dismiss, and ignore any other possible “side” to the CSDs. This happens mainly on their blogs in the vain hope that this other new “side” will simply go away.

To both the “consensus” and the “lukewarmers” I say, as I have said frequently before, and whilst remembering ALL should be sceptics.

" Most appear to have chosen to merely
quibble the figures of GH and AGW,
when they should have been
questioning the principles of GH and AGW. "

At this point it is worth, although it may seem extreme, quoting Hitler.

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough,
it will be believed.
Adolf Hitler

It is always more difficult
to fight against faith than against knowledge.
Adolf Hitler

It is not truth that matters, but victory.
Adolf Hitler

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and
eventually they will believe it.
Adolf Hitler
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author...HvLp5o5.99

It would seem Al Gore took note of the above quotes when producing his Inconvenient Truth. That “documentary it turns out is a GH based “Convenient pack of lies, untruths, and misrepresentations”.

This must mean that if there is no GH effect then both “sides” and the members of both “sides” of the “official” climate science debates either MUST KNOW that they are lying, or that they are incompetent.

Scientists and academics have a professional and personal responsibility to be both sceptical and honest. We rely on them to provide honest data and interpretations of data, and therefore what it shows. Furthermore, we expect them to convey the best and most current knowledge. That is what we pay them for, that which is honest, good, and the best we have at present. We do not expect either would knowingly pass on duff information. We do not pay either of them to be incompetent.

Politicians mostly pay climate scientists to research climate. Climatology is literally a “state science”. This means that, if the politicians receive poor data and or knowledge from the scientists they have paid, then it will be portrayed as the scientists fault. However, if the scientist did not prove that which he or she was being funded to prove, he or she would not be funded again, would he or she ???

In short, the politicians will get what they paid for, or else they will not pay again. THAT is the CATCH 22 for the scientists.
Does he or she get paid for lying, whilst remaining the scapegoat, or does he or she not have a job. The politicians get away with this scott free.

Bureaucrats are no better than politicians, but boy do they love a “science” to regulate, create new rules, and laws to enforce with.

So, given the present climate science debates are between 2 “official” “sides” that both “believe” in GH, is it any wonder that any radical that wants to question the principles of GH or AGW is presently resoundingly, forcefully, rejected forthwith. And sooner if possible.
NO, it is no surprise, because, it is easier for the 2 “sides” of the “official” debates to BOTH shoot the messenger, so that
they do not have to admit that they are either lying or incompetent.

Politicians, bureaucrats, the monied financiers ALL sit back and blame the scientists. Academics will just keep a low profile, they are literally ivory tower cowards, particularly during the possible transition from one climate science paradigm to another.

Please do not shoot the messenger.
There is no greenhouse effect.
THAT is the message the “official” climate science debate tries to ignore and silence.

I think there is a great need, a historic need for PSI.
http://principia-scientific.org/
My concern however is that it will have many, and very powerful enemies,
as do the natural sciences.
Unfortunately I must also express the concern that,
ANY organisation IS corrupted, and corrupting.

Note 1
For those that want to know,
You may not have heard of, or read the following links
1. P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW. GWS forum thread
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1324.html

2. Joe.Postma Model Atmosphere pdf on Hans Shreuder’s I love my CO2 blog.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/...Effect.pdf


Those who have read the above links, know the GH effect is imaginary (whether they admit it to themselves and anyone else or not) GH “theory “can be described as the -18C/240wm2 paradigm



But we all know sunlight received at Earth’s surface is not that cold from our own experience.
P/4 is unphysical, we know this. P/4 is a meaningless system average. That is why GH is imaginary.
The proof is sunlight warms us and the Earth’s surface well above -18C. We all know this.
Milford Haven proves this.
http://www.milfordweather.org.uk/solar.php
Thermodynamics proves this.
Let us take a square meter of earth’s surface at Milford Haven for example.
If you could work out all the relevant figures in the below two plots, would you be able to work out the surface temperature at Milford Haven, and how it would change over time.
Yes, and yes, without any GH effect whatsoever….
Thermodynamic INs


Thermodynamic OUTs


Carl Brehmer has also been questioning greenhouse.
VERY SUCCESSFULLY in my opinion.
http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Gree...lcome.html

[Derek]

I think this thread deserves being stickied. So, I have.