Let’s talk about the Sun. The prominent physicist Wal Thornhill explored the many obstacles that institutional science and academia face in attempting to understand climate change on Earth. As Thornhill explained, no climate models can succeed that rely on outdated and unproven assumptions, such as the belief that the Earth and Venus are twins and, [that] Venus’ super-hot temperatures were created by a runaway greenhouse effect.
Thornhill emphasizes the necessity that climate scientists finally recognize the electrical circuitry connecting the Earth and Sun which may, in fact, drive climate and weather. In climate science we must truly understand the electrical space environment as well. Nobel prize-winning plasma cosmologist Hannes Alfvén published the Sun’s electric circuit in 1986. But he assumed the Sun was a generator in a closed local circuit, rather than an electric motor connected to the galaxy. The faster rotation of the Sun’s equatorial plasma is evidence for the motor. The solar discharge has a very effective feedback system to maintain steady radiant output while the electrical power input varies.
Sun as a variable star
In fact, the solar radiant energy is termed a “solar constant,” which of course is critical to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) argument. But the Sun is a variable star when viewed in X-rays, which are diagnostic of the electrical input to the Sun. However, no account is taken of this variable electrical power focused on the Sun and intercepted by the planets. The constancy of the Sun’s brightness is simply explained by the Electric Universe model of bright stars where the photospheric anode tufts, or granulations, have a natural transistor action in limiting the current and therefore the energy dissipated in the photosphere. An electrical connection has been traced from the Sun to the Earth’s magnetosphere; from the magnetosphere to the ionosphere; and from the ionosphere into weather systems. No one can claim to be “a climate expert” while ignorant of the electrical nature of the solar system. This cosmic energy source explains the reports of simultaneous warming on the other planets. It is the main driver of climatic variability.
Human carbon emissions count for nothing in comparison. It seems there is an unconscious human aspect to the climate change debate. Why do we keep repeating the mistakes of the past? Why can’t we ‘get a grip’ and witness our self-delusion and hubris in believing that in the last instant of our existence we have uncovered the secrets of the universe? Why do we so strenuously ignore the evidence for recent global catastrophe and, by doing so, not recognize the origin of our innate fear of doomsday? Is it that apocalyptic fear that drives the need to feel in control of Nature? But as Bill Gaede says, “Mother Nature doesn’t care what humans believe in.” Ignorance and fear are our undoing. And both are at the heart of the Global Warming debate. To help us feel safe in this unpredictable universe we favor fictional stories over the truth. We cannot tolerate uncertainty. No matter how far-fetched the idea, if the climate is changing we must take the blame so that a remedy seems possible. But that exposes us to exploitation by authorities. It is a familiar pattern of behavior.
Major progress is achieved by individuals
The early astronomers/priests attained great power by presenting the facade of human control in being able to predict frightening eclipses. More recently our astronomer-priests received considerable funding and recognition by playing on our doomsday fear of comet and asteroid impact. This game has been so successful that the same people are doing it again by pointing at Dante’s inferno on Venus and suggesting a similar fate for the Earth. But for the adventurous few who accept the uncertainty of our existence, the fossil record and the ravaged faces of other planets and moons bear witness to a dynamic history of the solar system. It is abundantly clear that the story of Venus is quite different to that of the Earth.
The scare campaigns only work because of our frightful ignorance. A search for the truth must first establish a sound foundation and that requires a broad historical perspective that few physicists ever achieve. Those who do take the trouble generally ask awkward questions and are ostracized as deniers, skeptics or cranks. Scientific truth cannot be arrived at democratically. Either something is true or it is not. The claim that most scientists believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming is worthless. The majority of scientists once believed the Earth is the center of the universe. Koestler is right, history shows that major progress is achieved by individuals, call them seers, and not by bureaucratic institutions. But seers are the people who today are shut out by peer review.