The new paper is published on arXiv and the link page can be found here. PDF here:
The False Basis of Climate Alarm
“In any collection of data, the figure most obviously correct, beyond all need of checking, is the mistake.”
-Finagle’s 3rd Law
Theories have foundations, starting points, or pillars upon which everything else is dependent. These are called “axioms”. From Wiki:
“An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning.”
The paradigm of Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarm (ACCA) depends specifically, and singularly, on a mechanism called the “radiative greenhouse effect”.
Also from Wiki on axioms:
“As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.”
This is the attitude and approach taken by climate alarmists and the entire field of climate science to its postulate of a radiative greenhouse effect. But in fact, the (radiative) greenhouse effect of climate science is not how an actual greenhouse functions, and, their new definition of the phrase “greenhouse effect” contradicts the traditional meaning of the term greenhouse effect as it exists in an actual greenhouse. The thing is, a real greenhouse should function by the new mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect of climate science, but, it doesn’t. And if the mechanism doesn’t exist in a real greenhouse, where it should exist, then it can’t exist in the atmosphere either since the laws of physics are universal.
There is something wrong with the following diagram and its blurb. Can you spot it?
The answer is in the paper.
“Once you have assumed the wrong ontology and epistemology, everything you subsequently say is automatically in error.”
Do you want to take down scientific materialism, the scientific anti-philosophical paradigm? Do you want philosophy to use mathematics and physics better than science can, and to make philosophy once more reign supreme in intellectualism and to assert its supremacy over science? Perhaps something more current, more part of the social zeitgeist, will help. Unless you have an event more interesting.
By the by, anyone who’s educated enough and has enough intellectual merit can publish articles on the “History and Philosophy of Science” section of arXiv, hosted at Cornell University Library. It would be nice to see it populated with a certain ontological class of philosophy papers analyzing the myriad paradoxes and inconsistencies of modern science.
As it turns out, my own thermodynamics partial differential equations professor outlined the same fundamental error of climate science and its greenhouse effect over 10 years ago, and wrote about it in his book!
It’s no wonder he discovered the problem too, given that he taught me the Fourier mathematics I myself used to confirm that there is indeed a fundamental, irreducible, fatal error at the very basis of climate alarm, thereby rendering climate alarm totally wrong from the very ground up! Great stuff!
BTW, this is my old professor’s take on the situation, after discussing it with him today:
“Don’t you think the situation is a little insane? That the fundamentals can be totally, and even obviously and very simply wrong, yet they continue on and ignore such fundamental criticism? Doesn’t this say something about the health of science, or about a fundamental problem with it? It’s bizarro land.
They say it is about social justice…but how is wanting to make the weather more equal about social justice?!
There is a real problem at work here.”
“I have been at this for more than 30 years. I got to madness as a conclusion long ago. But now I have accepted that humans are inherently limited. On technical subjects they may be able to be much smarter than they are in practice, but they are so very distracted that they cannot think about even simple things despite their potential. This is the only subject I know of where the subject matter is out of bounds to any debate about the topic. On things like this people behave like drunks whose ignorance is above .08 but there is no social pressure to make them refrain from driving. To the contrary they insist on driving. It would not be so bad if they would just sit things out, but here we are listening to all manner of benighted fools in positions of power or authority pontificating about what they know nothing about, from journalists to academics and politicians, while simultaneously working to silence anyone who tries to push the actual subject matter into the discussion.”