There are several layers to science. I criticize at the most basic level, which tends to be out of view of the public. The standards of the most basic science have become totally corrupt due to lack of openness and accountability. There are very few critics of this vast wasteland of fraud in science.

The global warming issue brought the public into contact with a subject of science unlike anything else. It shows how fraud and propaganda interact with criticism and rationality to produce an evolution of truth.

The Propaganda Layer

At the most superficial level of global warming alarmism is blatant propaganda. Where there is propaganda, it is the first contact with a subject that the public gets. That's the purpose of propaganda — to overwhelm the public.

At this level, the propaganda is spearheaded by Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." It is spread through the education system, as only propaganda can be. If the movie were just Al Gore's opinions, it would be irrelevant, since he has never studied an iota of science in his life. It only becomes relevant as propaganda.

Al Gore has stated that his accuracy doesn't matter, because the cause of environmentalism is so noble. That view is a major element of propaganda — misrepresenting for a noble purpose. If the purpose really were so noble, would dishonesty really be necessary?

The Mainstream Media

The next level down, which is not separate from the propaganda, is journalistic reporting in its most visible forms commonly referred to as the mainstream media, or MSM. With the global warming issue (now called climate change — a term which I avoid, since it is too gross of a fraud to be reproduced), the MSM is locked onto the propaganda like a fish with a hook in its mouth. Only a few recent articles have produced traces of criticism.

The media spins the latest science to fit the propaganda position that humans are causing global warming and whimsically attributes all natural events to the result. Supposedly, nothing happens in nature anymore which is not caused by humans putting carbon dioxide into the air.

Criticism and Counter-Criticism

A very large amount of quality criticism has developed in response to the propaganda. Many web sites, blogs and minor newspapers produce page after page of high quality and factual material refuting the claims of global warming alarmists.

The most visible example of quality criticism is Marc Morano's journalistic summaries on Climatedepot.com. Marc Morano represents the science well; but at the journalistic level the science is quite superficial. He is, of course, despised and degraded by alarmists, in the only style they know, which is personal attack with no relationship to objective reality. They say he misrepresents; but at most, he would be dramatizing, not misrepresenting. Dramatizing, even while exaggerating, is a valid journalistic tool. That's what cartoons do to make a point. And when it is a valid point, it is not misrepresentation. The skeptics do not have to misrepresent, since they could not be more right in criticizing the global warming scam.

The Official Science

At the level of official science, all claims are hedged to the nth degree due to the danger of being proven wrong. Then the alarmist scientists run to the media with their results making absurd claims which would be preposterous in the realm of science. Journalists then add their own interpretations which tend to be scientifically absurd, and the end result has no relationship to the starting point in science.

Alarmist know-nothings are constantly bickering over whether the science is official enough, with the usual test being peer review. The alarmists are seldom even scientists, yet they tell us what the peer reviewed science is supposed to be and what it means. That's more or less what Al Gore did. He supposedly could look into the well of science and tell us something we can't see for ourselves. Since we have usually studied more science than he has, we often find that it is not in there.

The Basics of Science

At the bottom of it all is basic science. It is not directly visible to the public. Attempts to describe it for the public are so misinformed and erroneous that they make charlatans of the twelfth century look honest.

For example, it is common to see someone claim, even some scientists who should know better, that CO2 reflects radiation back to the surface of the earth, sometimes from the stratosphere. CO2 does not reflect radiation; it absorbs radiation.

Climatology is a form of physics. Physics does not function as science, it functions as basic engineering for technology. For technology, equations work well when contrived and tailored for a reproducible result. Doing this with technology makes physicists the idols of power mongers. But it doesn't work for science. Yet physicists do the same thing in science. They make up equations, then make up explanations for the results, and then make up stories about it for the public. This standard spreads to all weak-minded persons involved in the subject who assume that science is no more than a scam to be foisted onto gullible fools.

Out of this well, the public gets such results as the "hockey stick graph," which was used by the IPCC as its primary propaganda ploy. It has recently been shown to be a total contrivance in contempt for related science.

Also out of this well, science pretenders were given the number 1.2°C as the supposed amount of temperature increase that would occur upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the air. Alarmists pretend that this number is a fact of the universe, since it is a number produced from supposed peer reviewed science. No source for this number has ever been produced in peer reviewed science. The number traces back to fake calculations which can be shown to be phonier than a three dollar bill. (Fake Forcing Equations) The reason is because modern science does not have the slightest ability to determine how the atmosphere heats, besides the fact that it is the oceans which control the climate, not the atmosphere.

As the physics gets more basic, the frauds are harder to prove; but could the standards be any different coming from the same bunch? For example, the Stephan-Boltzmann constant shows about ten times too much radiation given off by normal temperature matter, which allows CO2 to absorb more radiation than really exists. The Stephan-Boltzmann constant shows about 49% as much radiation given off by the walls of a dark, cold basement as falls on black asphalt at the equator at noon. Could anyone really believe that?

Beyond global warming, the public should be able to understand what is wrong with relativity, yet there is never a peep beyond a few critics within science. Relativity says the velocity of light is determined by the receiving point. Effect supposedly precedes cause, which is never valid. Stated in these simple terms, physicists deny it; yet emitting points and a medium are eliminated as the determining influence over velocity leaving only the receiving points. And everything is evaluated in terms of the "observer," which is the same thing as the receiving point. Regardless, physicists split all observers or receiving points into different reference frames. There is no validity in splitting up the material universe into more than one reference frame, because multiple reference frames break relationships. All motion can be, and must be, defined in a single reference frame. Why can't the public determine this as easily as a physicist? There's no secret message in mathematics which says multiple reference frames are valid.

These types of errors (frauds) go back in physics to the fake measurement of Joule's constant, around 1850, where water was stirred in a wooden bucket to determine how much heat is produced through friction in water. The water would have been stirred for a couple of hours, while any heat produced would have dissipated in a few minutes.

Physics as science approximately ended with Newton's laws. The application of Newton's laws plus similar relationships in Ohm's laws, etc, create tools for producing technology; but there is no real study of basic laws of nature in physics. If there is some truth in observations of astronomy or bubble chambers, they are isolated observations; they do not correct the frauds which remove physics from the subject of science. The absence of real science in physics taught physicists and their admirers that science is a method of promoting fraud, much like ancient charlatanism, or similar to Madoff type pyramid schemes, rather than a reliable source of information. The global warming scam shows the total lack of respect for honesty in physics.

High Quality Criticism of the Global Warming Scam