Physicists have been saying that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, because that's how long it takes light to get to earth from the most distant galaxies. How long did it take for matter to get from the big bang to the edge of the universe? It seems physicists forgot to add that amount in. So they now say it got there in near zero time, which they call inflation.
Laws of nature don't exist when matter travels 13.5 billion light-years in less than a second. Sorcery takes over where laws of nature leave off. Physicists tell us what happened during the first few fractions of a second, because laws of nature supposedly existed for awhile. Then the laws of nature disappeared while matter traveled to approximately its present location.
Science deteriorated into corruption a long ways back in physics, and now in the biological sciences also. Incompetents push their way into science and replace real science with fakery. They create schemes such as global warming and relativity for unlimited contrivance devoid of the rationality which proves them wrong.
The fakery cannot be published the way science is supposed to be published, because it will not stand up to openness and accountability. The publications do not describe methodology, and key information that is needed for evaluation is omitted.
The problem is not just a technicality; the evasiveness is a cover for incompetence and corruption. Real science excludes corruption. Procedures of accountability do that. Those procedures are being defied.
Some nonsense, for example, will be promoted saying laboratory measurements show this, as if absurd laboratory results could trump logic and developed knowledge. Fake measurements are a large part of the problem. The fakery relies upon elaborate procedures for obfuscation preventing critics from producing corrections. Measurements alone are not science. They cannot be verified without related knowledge consistent with laws of nature.
The net result is that a large part of science has deteriorated to a standard of “just trust us” (authoritarianism) for results which do not stand up to criticism, can be shown to be self-contradictory and are in conflict with developed knowledge and laws of nature.
The promoters of global warming over-simplify thinking single points tell everything, such as greenhouse gases trapping heat. One molecule of carbon dioxide heating 2,500 molecules around it is not a relevant amount of heat. Heat cannot be trapped, because it is too dynamic. It flows into and out of the atmosphere in femto seconds.
There are several dimensions to science which are being missed. One is the vastness of the information; and it is all relevant. It can't be skipped over in evaluating subjects. Another dimension is quality. It's not all of the same degree of reliability. Another dimension is meaning. The method of measurement determines the meaning of the resulting information. Another dimension is purpose. Science cannot produce knowledge and truth without the procedures which produce that result.
Graduate students learn where science comes from when the try to prove something. You can't prove that water is wet. Therefore, all science can do is add evidence. What that evidence is worth depends upon prior knowledge. You can't short-cut the subject.
Another problem is that power is in conflict with the truth that science is supposed to produce. Truth is the same for everyone; power is not. Power mongers want to separate themselves from lesser persons; and they have to suppress or avoid truth to do so. As a result, truth is being overrun by power mongers in science.
Science is defined by the expectation of replacing ignorance and falsehood with reliable information. Only certain procedures do so. Evidence must be acquired in a verifiable and reproducible manner. Each person must determine for themselves what the evidence means, because truth cannot be dictated; it can only evolve through the interaction of realities.
Instead, science has devolved into an evasive mode, where the evidence is buried in a gnostic pit inaccessible to other scientists, let alone the public. Gnosticism is more than a religion, its the ethic of mongering power through domination. It's the pretense that all knowledge springs from a darkness unfathomable to all but the most superior elites. Rationality is too debased for such elites.
Isn't it strange that this was the charlatanism which science was supposed to replace. It doesn't die easily, because it is the tool used by incompetents to overwhelm rationality in pushing their way into power. Charlatanism is back using science for a fake validly which could not have been dreamed of in the thirteenth century.
There is a general concept, often inside science, that science is acquiring information through any complex procedure. Everyone gets a different version of results unless there are standards which verify. Real science is like a court case; if the standards are not strict enough, the result is motives instead of facts. With real science, there is one version of reality—objective reality—which is continuously built upon and clarified.
What is often not realized is that standards determine the quality and reliability of science. Standards require properly developed methodologies involving controls, references and tests which have been shown to apply to the conditions being used. The quality of science is in developing the right information through the right procedures.
Properly defined science is difficult to achieve, as demonstrated by corruptions of science which include all of physics. At the physics extreme, nothing resembling proper science has been known since Newton's time. Engineering is mostly coming from Newton's laws and trial and error. But engineering is vastly different from science. In fact, attempts to turn science into engineering has been destroying science since the sixties. Bureaucrats assume science should look like engineering; so they make scientists do their research at a desk instead of a laboratory. Science bureaucrats are a bunch of incompetents who don't have a clue as to what science is supposed to be. They now require statistical analysis with every number acquired in the biological sciences, even though statistics are not valid without the most strict applications requiring specially designed methodology.
Global warming should have raised alarms. Real science doesn't produce that much argument. There are a significant number of scientists who properly relate to global warming as fake science, but they lose their ability to get grants or publish, and the public sees little of it. Their views were assembled by Marc Morano who accumulated a list of 1,000 such scientist (1).
Claiming that 97% of the scientists agree upon something (2) is falling back on consensus. Agreement, or consensus, is a power mongering tool, not a rationality tool. What someone believes used to be determined by asking them with surveys and statistics. That procedure is not malleable enough for climatology, nor is it a real scientific procedure. So the method was to look at thousands of publications and guess at some opinion about something which no one can fathom.
The Nazis maintained total agreement at all times. No one defied them for more than a few days, as the White Rose demonstrated. Anyone who thinks they are going to impose truth onto us through agreement is closer to Nazism than science. The tactic of excluding critics from the media to purify the truth is crass Nazism.
Standards have deteriorated in science to a point where methodology is often little more than a justification for predetermined conclusions.
Can anyone believe that sea creatures are moving toward the poles due to global warming (3), and then on top of that that scientists have a methodology for studying the question? For evidence, hundreds of publications were reviewed to extract the answer. Supposedly, elites can extract gnostic brilliance out of such unidentifiable evidence.
The science of an obscure mushroom called the morel is no different. The morel is a dramatic example of extreme biology and evolution, the mushroom having evolved from a single-celled yeast a few months ago (about 20 thousand years ago) in evolutionary perspective.
University scientists relate to it quite banally referring to it as a cup fungus and recently declaring its evolutionary age to be 129 million years old (3). That's a lot of discrepancy. Where does it come from? One element of the discrepancy is a computer program which mycologists use to evaluate phylogenetic relationships based upon DNA comparison. They use it to construct "the most parsimonious tree" for fungal relationships. The result is quite different from that of traditional taxonomy, which was based on evaluation of all characteristics. In fact, no two evaluations of phylogenetics produces the same results. The discrepancies are never mentioned, let along resolved, as if each scientist were representing unquestionable laws of nature.
I wasn't allowed to publish my work on the morel mushroom—no reason given beyond one publisher saying the result was nothing but a novelty. I thought scientists were just dying to publish novelties. The real reason would have been that I was not a part of the good-old-boys club that screens scientific manuscripts through the peer review process.
The usual assumption and claim is that peer review purifies science. There is no such thing as purifying real science, particularly since science operates at the boundaries of knowledge. Correct science builds upon other correct science, while errors fall to the wayside. Trying to use peer review to purify could only be a social process, not a scientific process. It purifies a power structure, not science.
Science can only produce evidence which each person evaluates for himself. Truth must evolve; no one can dictate it. Through the interactions of realities, consistent relationships support each other and are strengthened, while conflicting relationships are weakened.
We see a strong opposition to this process in the way global warming is promoted. Nonscientists say, if it isn't peer reviewed, it isn't science. Yet most of the promoting is done by nonscientists who don't have a clue as to what has been peer reviewed. They fall back on the consensus of 97% of scientists supposedly agreeing upon something. This standard is not being corrected by scientists; they promote it through implications which are always going to produce unjustified assumptions by nonscientists.Rationality requires that claims include enough explanation to allow each person to evaluate for themselves. The explanations are not being included with the claims. Without explanations, society is getting a railroad job. False realities do not have a consistent relationship to surrounding realities. Only when explanations are required do the conflicting relationships show up. Global warming was contrived out of such false standards. There never were explanations for the absurd claims. The first relevant publication modeled atmospheric effects to determine how much heating should occur, while there was no concept of a mechanism for carbon dioxide creating heat. The next step was adding the historical record of 0.6°C global temperature increase with 100 parts per million carbon dioxide increase as the primary effect and then modeling the atmosphere to determine secondary effects, mostly due to water vapor. The historical record included secondary effects, which are now days said to be twice as much as the primary effect by carbon dioxide. And yet, the first and second approaches produce identical results of 3°C expected increase upon doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Why not just extend the curve for historical effects? Because alarmists wanted to show three times as much heating as history showed. So they used a bunch of muddle to get there. There were no explanations in those publications that scientists could evaluate. Modeling of atmospheric effects is the entire basis for global warming claims. Modeling is not real science. It is the projection of assumptions with no method of acquiring evidence. Science attempts to verify through reproducible evidence. Science consists of two parts: The acquisition of evidence, and the judgment and evaluation which produce knowledge. The largest part of science is applying accumulated knowledge to a subject. Knowledge, including established principles, is the most important evidence. Knowledge has to be described to be evidence. A lack of explanations is the new normal for replacing the rationality which people can judge for themselves with modern charlatanism. The net result shows up in the international meetings on "climate change." Country representatives go to those meetings with the purpose of imposing their will upon each other. Missing is the reality element. Develop the realities, and no force is required. A society cannot run on force; it can only run on realities. Why isn't the science of global warming being discussed instead of kicking opponents in the face for disagreeing? What is the so-called settled science? How good is the evidence? The public needs to know. If the public doesn't know what the science is, no amount of force is going to fix the problem. Around the periphery of science there is a promotion of the outdated concept that science is forming a hypothesis and testing the hypothesis. Nothing resembling it has existed in science in at least a century. Modern science is too complex for such over-simplification. There are no instruments or procedures for answering the large questions of modern science. Instead, tools are developed for adding more evidence to complex subjects. Stanley Prusiner and his followers didn't know this. He supposedly pulled a dozen procedures off the shelf for answering the question of whether Scrapies-like diseases, such as Mad Cow Disease, are caused by proteins called prions. Afterwards, no one could reproduce his results; but by then he had a Nobel prize, and you can guess who was supposedly right. It would have taken numerous laboratories several years to add real evidence to each of the questions. Numerous tests are required to determine proper methodology and validity. References and standardizations are needed for comparisons. These were the standards of previous science, but standards have totally disappeared in most areas of science at this time. There is a lot that is unscientific and ridiculous in claiming a protein is the causative agent for a disease—so much so that any scientist should be able to flatly state that it doesn't happen. Proteins are extremely vulnerable to damage, while the causative agent was more resistant to damage than anything previously known. This is why most viruses must be transmitted in liquids. Drying destroys the functionality of complex proteins including those surrounding most viruses. Pox viruses are an exception, as their protein coats evolved for drying. But in doing so, they lost all complexity and only function as an inert pouch. This is why smallpox was easily eradicated through immunization. The crude protein coat was not changing its antigenic characteristics; so immunizing to cowpox would be effective against human smallpox. One vaccine would work always, everywhere. If a protein does not carry its own genetic material with it, then the gene for the protein is carried in the host DNA and is a genetic disease. Genetic diseases never go beyond one mutation before being removed through the process of evolution. Yet the so-called prion diseases are complex and include strain variations which evolve. What really happens is that the causative agent damages the brain in such a way as to cause madness for spreading the disease, something like rabies does. The brain damage is caused by lesions which contain an over-production of one of the common proteins in brain cell membranes. This protein transports something into or out of the cell by flipping back and forth between two shapes. One of those shapes is said to be a disease form of the protein. That is an impossibility, because evolution does not destroy the host that way. There are endless absurdities in the prion "theory." Diseases need a way of spreading. One person's brain protein cannot get into another person's brain. If it could get into the blood, the immune system would destroy it. Foreign proteins are easy to identify in the blood by the immune system. A protein that caused similar proteins to change by bumping into them would not cause the cells to produce more such proteins and destroy themselves doing so. About 50 million years ago, mammals diverged in their evolution to form lines which separate the human line from the sheep line and cattle line. But at this instantaneous point in time, sheep, cattle and humans are supposedly having their brain chemistry fall apart, in exactly the same ways, creating defective brain proteins which deform when bumping into each other and kill the host—an impossible amount of coincidence in the evolution of a genetic disease. The problem is that incompetent persons pushed their way into science and shoved out real scientists. They use force to get their way and collaborate with other incompetents (a conspiracy) as a form of group power. Agreement or consensus is their primary form of power. They need power to generate force; so they become power mongers. They oppose rationality, because it exposes their incompetence and corruption. At this point in time, power mongers are systematically reversing a large part of scientific knowledge to strip it of its logic, which they cannot handle. They promote fraud, because they can arbitrate it with no danger of logic or knowledge proving them wrong. Fraud is "unfalsifiable." As Popper, the science philosopher, stated, science must be falsifiable. This absurd concern rises to the surface in science due to the relentless effort of power mongers to contrive fraud as an unfalsifiable subject. In relativity, millions of lines of mathematics have been written without a flaw in them, because relativity has no relationship to objective reality. Such frauds are totally stripped of the "scientific method" designed to produce verifiable evidence. An example of reversal of science is the asteroid belt. For centuries, scientists have known that the asteroid belt was created by a planet exploding between Mars and Jupiter. Recently, scientists have decided that there was no planet exploding; it was the gravity of Jupiter that created the asteroid belt. The fake explanation doesn't answer a relevant question. Gravity doesn't cause broken rocks to form. In fact, Pluto was delisted as a planet, because it is too small to have formed independently. A larger size is needed to create enough of its own gravity to form a planet. Pluto is another asteroid resulting from the exploded planet. The asteroids were flung all over the solar system, but they were swept away in most places by planets and their moons. Out where Pluto is located, there are numerous asteroids, because there is nothing out there to sweep them away. Another absurdity which could only be produced in recent years is the claim that Yellowstone Park in Wyoming contains a super volcano about fifty miles in diameter. You don't see it in satellite photos. Scientists never saw it until recently. The evidence is under the ground. The supposed volcano is said to have emitted hundreds of cubic miles of lava during several eruptions in the past. How did the lava get so flat and heterogeneous? It was obviously an asteroid that created the fracture in the earth's crust. Frauds think nothing of forcing absurdities onto everyone through the fake authority of unquestionable science. The absurdity of absurdities is the way the universe supposedly expanded through inflation. For several decades, physicists have been telling the kiddies that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, because that's how long it takes light to get to earth from the most distant galaxies. But it all supposedly started with a big bang. How long then did it take for matter to get from the bang to the edge of the universe? It seems physicists forgot to add that amount in. As luck would have it, it got there in near zero time. Laws of nature don't exist when matter travels 13.5 billion light-years in less than a second. Sorcery takes over where laws of nature leave off. Physicists tell us what happened during the first few fractions of a second, because laws of nature existed for awhile. Then the laws of nature disappeared while matter traveled to approximately its present location. Some of the matter stayed quite close to the earth (the center of the universe), and the distribution was extremely unequal. Were there laws of sorcery which determined the distribution? There had to be laws of sorcery which created the universe, because laws of nature don't exist until everything gets exactly where it presently exists, beyond slight movement afterwards. Reduce force or distance by one half, and the universe does not exist through laws of nature. The solar system cannot be half as large and an atom cannot be half as large, unless force also changes in some way. It wasn't just space inflating. The universe didn't skip from small to large; there is no state for small. It had to be created large. What then inflated, if the universe was created large; and where was the big bang, if the universe was created large? Was there a small universe, say less than a micron, where suitable forces existed, and then all expanded (inflated)? How do you define a micron, if everything was less? Not having explanations for these questions doesn't put the subject in the realm of rational theory, yet the power mongers proclaim their story as facts of science. Physics was the first area of science to fall into corruption. The laws of physics are so mysterious and abstract that they are almost impossible to study. This prevents critics from adding evidence to support opposing views. As a result, there has not been an iota of physics produced since Newton's laws which has not been in error. You say complex technology works, and it's based on laws of physics. Technology is produced through engineering, which is vastly different from science. In many ways, they are opposites. An engineer is in no position to question what he is given. Engineers do tests, but they are superficial, like testing the hardness of concrete. The science of these tests is not studied by engineers. It is when the scientific explanations leave off that engineers must do trial-and-error testing. Physicists are like super engineers when they are creating technology. Afterwards, they produce exotic explanations, which may or may not be right. But products and methods produced through trial-and-error are the engineering method, not the scientific method. The difference is in basic knowledge being the goal and product of science. In other words, physics knowledge can be totally wrong, while engineers and super engineers produce technology. Some persons might disagree and say technologists really have to know what they are doing. Good engineers really know what they are doing, even though there has not been an iota of physics right since Newton's laws. Engineering is entirely based on Newton's laws and trial-and-error testing. For example, the definition of kinetic energy which physicists use has too much velocity in it, which results in the rate of energy addition, called power, having velocity in it. So physicists assume that the power of an engine is proportional to its rpms (velocity), when it is really proportional to force only. So a small, high rpm motor supposedly has more power than a large, low rpm motor. Ignoring and rationalizing the contradictions is what physicists live with. Conceptualize this point like this: If you blow on a spacecraft moving millions of miles per hour, you add several horsepower. If you blow on a stationary spacecraft, you add an ants power. How can you do both? Every spacecraft in existence is traveling millions of miles per hour relative to something, which might be solar wind. Every tree is moving millions of miles per hour relative to something. You can't be adding horsepower and ant power to everything simultaneously. In other words, velocity is too relative to be a part of energy addition. Real scientists do not ignore and tolerate such contradictions, but physicists do. Most areas of science cannot be ideal, because experimentation is too difficult. Geology is an example. Claiming that soil was created through the breakdown of rocks is amazingly absurd. This sort of oversimplified assumingness is found throughout science, and it really messes up a lot of logic. You can’t build knowledge upon it. The study of evolution is particularly dependent upon proper geology. There are numerous absurdities in the claim. First, clay is high in aluminum, while most rocks have no significant aluminum. Secondly, plant roots need good quality soil to grow in; they don’t grow on rocks. Terrestrial plants could not evolve until good quality soil existed. It appears that shale was the closest thing to soil to be created while the earth was forming. Precambrian sediments would have originated with shale. Oceans would have eroded and dissolved shale. Terrestrial life could not begin under such conditions, because there were no fine particles of shale outside the ocean floor. Modern clay was added later, when a planet exploded. Only then could terrestrial life begin, which would have been the cause of the Cambrian explosion of life beginning 543 million years ago. The exploded planet would have been much larger than the earth, which is why it exploded. Due to its size, the clay which formed was different from the shale produced by earth. Perhaps the explosion allowed aluminum and silicone to reform as clay.
The Disappearance of ScienceThere is very little left of real science. What replaced it is not poor quality science but the justification of science being used to rationalize corruption. A few scientists saw this with global warming and called it a hoax. What they seem to have missed is that the same thing happened throughout science. In fact, global warming could only come to the surface as a social issue after science deteriorated to a point where the errors prevailed over real science. There have been tens of thousands of studies produced on the effects of global warming, while global warming does not exist. How can something be studied when it doesn't exist? Not only are humans not the cause of global warming, a temperature increase did not actually occur. The temperature measurements were faked. The original data shows no temperature increase over the past 35 years at least, while contrivers lowered earlier measurements and increased recent measurements to show a false increase. Critics have been studying these fabrications for the past six years and found endless examples. Satellite measurements have shown no significant temperature increase since they began making such measurements in the late seventies. Only satellite measurements are suitable for the purpose of climatology, because they average over a wide area and cover everything, while land-based measurements cover about 10% of the earth and have no standards for cross-comparisons or uniformity. The most basic problem is that the standards required for correct science disappeared. Fakes will study any trivial point and draw any conclusion from the results. The methodology is usually so vague that it does not measure anything real; it just produces random variations. Half the time the variations will move in the direction which is exploitable. If not, make a small variation, and the results will show the opposite. Correlation studies are often used for this purpose. It's like Sam and Joe growing potatoes. Sam wears brown shoes, and Joe wears black shoes. Sam gets 10 pounds per square yard, and Joe gets 15 pounds per square yard. Therefore, wearing black shoes will produce a higher yield than wearing brown shoes. Statistics are a common means of getting any desired result. Statistical procedures are so vague and subjective that the users can get any result they want by manipulating the procedures. Statistics were not allowed in hard core science several decades ago for this reason. Now they are required with every number produced, even though valid criteria cannot be met in most cases. The sample size is almost always too small. In other words, science has deteriorated into a rationalized propaganda machine. Everything that is supposed to correct or prevent such corruption is defied. Criticism is no longer allowed. Numerous scientists who criticized global warming claims have lost their ability to get grants or to publish, if not outright gotten fired. Journalists often refuse to allow criticism of global warming claiming it would contaminate the truth. Such corruption creates a war against rationality. Supposedly, a battle zone is needed around the periphery of science, while the core of science is the sacred ground of flawless perfection. It's nonfalsifiable. Serious corruptions can only be corrected with outside criticism. It isn't being allowed in science. Scientists police themselves. The mafia never had it so good. There is a self-condemning element to corruption in science. If science is so flawless that it doesn't need criticism, responding to criticism is necessary anyway to remove misunderstandings. But no criticism is allowed where there is corruption. The wall around corruption does not exist around truth. The methods are self-condemning. The only pretended basis for preventing criticism or corrections is that there is no need to correct or criticize due to flawless perfection. An extension of this pretense is that critics are so worthless or wrong that there is no need to respond to them. A related pretense is that even if the experts (like the IPCC) are wrong, they are making the best estimate that can be made, so there is no reason to listen to someone else. These pretenses are self-condemning, because truth never exists in the absence of rationality. Persons who produce truth have no difficulty responding to criticism, and it is always necessary to do so to prevent misunderstanding.
What Truth IsFirst and foremost, truth has to be relevant. Trivial truth cannot be separated from the subjectivity which degrades persons through gossip. People have a right to private lives separated from the realities which are a concern to everyone. The separation is based on objective reality. Objective reality is the common reality which is everyone's business. It starts with the material (natural) laws which govern material life. Gravity is one example. Science has the purpose of clarifying truth in that area, so the foundation and starting point of all other objective reality is reliable. There is a method of producing and testing the truth of objective reality. It's rationality. The reasoning process relates one reality to another for comparison. The comparisons remove contradictions and show consistent relationships. The consistent relationships define truth. Truth is all objective realities which have consistent relationships between them. They form one whole, which is unified reality. The universe is one set of realities which have consistent relationships between them. There is only one truth, because there is only one unified reality. False realities are small, broken up and conflicting pieces of reality. They create dissociated realities in minds. Truth can never be defied where there is openness and accountability, because it is the size of the universe with all elements consistently relating to each other. The darkness of concealment is required to promote falsehoods, because openness exposes false realities to their infinite conflict with unified reality. Life is made up of unified reality to such an extent that it can be defined philosophically as unified reality. Life could be defined as ordered complexity, but only unified reality allows ordered complexity. The dissociated reality of falsehoods creates disordered complexity. This is why truth is inseparable from all constructivity. If constructivity is that which sustains life, it can only occur when aligned upon the truth which makes up life. The point is, there is no place for falsehoods in science. Incompetents who monger power fight a war against rationality, because it proves them wrong and incompetent. They proclaim and reveal reality instead of develop it through rationality. Their method is a form of gnosticism, where the origins of reality cannot be determined, evaluated or verified. "Just trust us" is their standard of handling reality. People have a need and right to evaluate, clarify and substantiate all objective reality. It's a "self-evident and inalienable" right, because problems cannot be solved otherwise. All corrupters try to prevent people from determining what objective reality is, because power cannot be arbitrated with truth proving them wrong. The power of truth is the only force which corrupters cannot subdue. Truth must be suppressed to allow corrupters to function. The reason is because truth is the size of the universe, it forms the basis for all activity and it is interlinked with all other truth. Corrupters must pretend to be promoting truth, because truth is always bigger than they are. For this reason, the number one purpose of all persecution is to suppress truth. The vulnerable victims of injustice need truth to solve their problems and end their persecution. So they produce truth as the only defense they have. Oppressors retaliate attempting to stifle the truth. In this manner, truth comes from the bottom of society, while oppression comes from power mongers who use force as their method of prevailing. Corrupters decree their perversions to be truth, but they have to fight a war against rationality to do it. How could elites be so corrupt in science and such models of perfection everywhere else? They couldn't. That's one of the points. But there is a major difference. Science has the purpose of proving. Muddling a subject beyond comprehension can be called perfection elsewhere, but it isn't science. To produce that standard in science is the corruption of science. Science has the purpose of doing otherwise. To not do what science is supposed to be doing is the total corruption of science. Over and over, we are told that the science of global warming is beyond dispute. The persons telling us this have never studied an iota of science in their lives and have never looked at the science. So where do they get their information? From the news. We get the same news. Why do we have to be told something by someone who knows no more about the subject than we do? Because power mongering replaced rationality as the existing social standard. Rationality requires looking, evaluating and explaining. Those standards are a thing of the past.
What Corruption IsNot-so-bright persons often assume that if they could prevail against other persons it would solve their problems. To prevail is to dominate. So they become dominators. To dominate, they need power. So they become power mongers. Power mongering is an attempt to be totally at cause and zero effect. If others are allowed to be cause, power mongers fail. To fail is to be a loser worth no more than their incompetence leaves them with. People don't like to be prevailed against. It prevents them from solving their problems, because prevailing misdirects all activities aligning them upon the motives of power mongers. Another reason why prevailing is destructive is because it requires force to overwhelm rationality. Force can only be defined in terms of its result, which is to conflict with realities. The result is that there are two mediums of existence: the reality medium and a force medium. Rational persons do everything through reality, which creates a medium of realities which they exist in. Power mongers exist in a force medium which is incompatible with the reality medium. Nothing constructive can be done in the force medium, because realities must be controlled for constructivity, while force destroys realities. This means the force medium is not an alternative state of existence but a self-destructive state of existence. If power mongers in the force medium were to totally succeed they would destroy themselves along with everyone else. They need to exploit constructive persons while destroying them and their activities. It's a transitional state which runs aground as power mongers succeed in taking over the environment around them. Human history has been endless cycles of power mongers taking over social structures until they destroy themselves and everyone around them. Power constantly shifts from one country to another, as power mongers succeed in taking over everything around them. As one country self-destructs in that manner, another country will rise up to replace it. The power cycles rotated through all European countries, often more than once. Now, the power is in the U.S. As power mongers take over everything in the U.S., the result is self-destructing, as used to occur in European countries. The results are provable in science. Elsewhere, there is no proof, just conflicts in values. However, to look realistically at what is happening outside science one sees the irrationality of incompetents mongering power without a clue as to the consequences in such corruptions as global warming. Why do alarmists keep saying the science of global warming is settled, when they never look at the science to find out? A few scientists try to criticize, and they lose grants and the ability to function. If promoters were explaining their claims and showing evidence, we could evaluate for ourselves; but they never do. They don't know how, and they would fall flat if they tried. So we can't evaluate their claims, and the result is a railroad job. An example is the construction of windmills. Even if carbon dioxide did need to be removed from the air, constructing windmills would put more in the air, not less, because the high costs of construction and distribution include huge amounts of energy with fractions of assumed output. Governments used to have to do a cost-benefit analysis for their projects, but now days power mongers cannot add and subtract well enough to do a cost-benefit analysis. So they have to waste a lot of money to determine the consequences of their decisions, while "greens" assume that the more money spent on green, the greener it gets.
ValuesThere are values which develop along the lines of incompetence leading to power mongering as the main source of corruption. The conflict of values is sharpest in anti-progressiveness. Anti-progressives turn green with this statement: The planet could sustain fifty billion people easier than it is sustaining seven billion, if resources were developed instead of squandered. Strangely, persons who call themselves liberal, and maybe progressive, often claim there are too many people on the planet. They don't explain much along those lines, but the absence of constructivity in their purposes is a deafening silence. Human problems are not being solved. The undeveloped potential to do so is virtually unlimited. Before conservatives took over the world in 1981, real liberals were progressives and problem solvers. They were on the path of solving the problems which are now dragging down society everywhere. Water is an example which is visible in the affluent world. The U.S. has a catastrophic shortage of water, and no solutions are being discussed. During the seventies, progressives were taking up this problem. The primary solution was to get water from the abundance of ice around the Arctic. The methods being discussed included dragging icebergs into bays and surrounding them with plastic and using nuclear energy to melt Arctic ice and piping the water south. Theses things would be an afternoon picnic compared to the trillions of dollars spent on wars. But when conservatives took control of the deciding in 1981, all such concerns disappeared and were replaced with the supposedly higher purpose of defeating enemies. Why global warming followed liberal vs. conservative lines is hard to imagine, but liberals now are usually anti-progressive, because doing anything puts carbon dioxide in the air. Polar bears must be saved, while Orangutans are destroyed to produce biodiesel. Power mongers are approximately defined by viewing the masses of people as a threat due to consumption of limited resources. Power mongers assume they are worthy of the global resources, while the persons below them are not. Yet power mongers squander resources wantonly, because their concern is not really resources; they use resources as the excuse for domination. Power mongers need to dominate the persons below them, because truth originates from the bottom of society and exposes their incompetence and corruption. The lower classes need to solve problems, which requires rationality, while power mongers would rather create problems, which works best with lies and fraud. ---------------- 1. Marc Morano. Climate Depot. U.S. Senate Minority Report. More than 1000 scientists dissent on global warming.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore. 2. (97% of scientists) James Taylor. Global Warming alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus ' Claims. May 30, 2013, Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ 3. O'Donnell K, Rooney AP, Mills GL, Kuo M, Weber NS, Rehner SA (Mar 2011). "Phylogeny and historical biogeography of true morels (Morchella) reveals an early Cretaceous origin and high continental endemism and provincialism in the Holarctic". Fungal Genetics and Biology 48 (3): 252-265. doi:10.1016/j.fgb.2010.09.006 . PMID 20888422. News item -