Note the similarity between the Drake Equation and the one presented by Bill Gates in his infamous TED lecture where he implicitly justifies murdering much of mankind to ‘save the planet’. This is precisely the kind of dangerous pseudo-science which Crichton warns us against.
Examination of the ‘irrefutable settled science’ underpinning the greenhouse effect theory shows that it is little more than an assumption backed up by a mixture of thought habit and academic hubris.
The temperature distribution in the troposphere of planets is readily explained by application of the First Law of Thermodynamics, without reference to the so-called greenhouse effect.
This has largely be confirmed by the dimensional analysis work of Nikolov and Zeller, which has allegedly been ‘debunked’.
Unfortunately, if the debunker’s argument were correct and gravitational compression did not determine the temperature distribution in planetary atmospheres, it would be impossible for stars to start shining.
To challenge the science underpinning the greenhouse effect is widely perceived as an attack on motherhood and apple pie. But if the science presented is garbage, what other option is there?
We test the hypothesis that greenhouse gases cause the observed atmospheric temperature distribution by examining the null hypothesis; that the temperature distribution can be explained without reference to the greenhouse effect.
The null hypothesis is upheld, ergo the greenhouse effect theory is superfluous, and by Occam’s razor is discounted.
The attached listing presents the method used to calculate the true effect of water vapour on surface temperature, lapse rate and tropopause height. The results are also presented in my Bitchute and NewTube channels.
I have lost count of the number of times the technically ignorant, who cannot understand the actual science, deride my work because it isn’t ‘peer reviewed’. The fact that I am merely presenting ideas for discussion, and not as the dogma to which they are accustomed, is overlooked. Nowhere do I claim authority, but merely present arguments, based on fundamental established science which is taught in every university and high school. This work is intended to stimulate discussion, nothing more.
It is a pity that so many, usually non-participants, imagine that knowledge is just a matter of rote learning. The idea that reasoned argument, based on sound principles, should supersede the proclamations of gurus and sophists, is alien to such people. Lawyers and journalists can only refer to the word of ‘authorities’, because unlike scientists, they cannot appeal to Nature herself for corroboration, or preferably refutation, of existing wisdom. Unfortunately, it is journalists and politicians (usually lawyers) who quickly hi-jack the narrative, and apply their own anti-scientific criteria to the scientific discussion.
Actually, I should like to see the mathematical proof, or even the empirical evidence, that peer reviewed papers have the monopoly of wisdom or knowledge. There are thousands of counter-examples in the history of science. Indeed, every major advance has been a consequence of challenging established wisdom, so to base the selection criterion on what amounts to little more than a mixture of cronyism and intellectual snobbery is hardly supported by the scientific method.
Academic science tends to evolve initially as an area of study attached to a long established discipline. A case which comes to mind is control engineering. This started with the work of Bode and Nyquist as a branch of electrical engineering, and people like Bairstow in aeronautical engineering. These established pretty well all that is of practical use for the design of real control systems. Eventually, it became a recognised subject in its own right. It then merely became a talking shop, generating ever more obscure solutions to problems that rarely, if ever, are confronted in practice.
By the time the subject has its own chair at the university, it is for all intents, dead. The protagonists degenerate from scientists to sophists. We see this in their hostility to new ideas, which encroach on their ostensible monopoly of wisdom, arising from people outside their field, and hence mere interfering amateurs. Rather than seeking new ideas, the academic spends his/her time tinkering with old ones. In other words; flogging dead horses.
A classic example of this antagonism was between astronomy and the newly emerging study of space science, which occurred back in the infancy of this upstart new area of research. The most eminent astronomers of the time confidently proclaimed the impossibilty of interplanetary flight, and the absurdity of putting human beings in space. A few still even hung on to the popular myth that rockets wouldn’t work in a vacuum, because they had ‘nothing to push against’. Sophists, if allowed to breed, eventually become obstructive to real progress.
The degeneration of science to sophistry is an inevitable consequence of the way the academy is constructed and organised, based as it is on the ideas of Ancient Greece. That is, an organisation which pre-dates modern science by at least 1500 years. There was a hope that the American Universities, founded as they were in the Age of Reason, would follow a different paradigm, but even here it appears the perpetuation of human hubris takes priority over the search for truth, and year after year churn out a new crop of prigs.
We see this degeneration most clearly in the new ‘science’ of ‘climate science’. As long as study of the climate was an aspect of geology or meteorology, useful work was done. Now that it has become a subject in its own right and formed an unholy alliance with the quasi-science of ecology, any resemblance to true science has long since vanished. What other area of academic study, let alone science, demands that its detractors be silenced, even imprisoned? This isn’t even sophistry, it is barbarism.