Science at this time is not like historical science. A lot of change in science occurred over the past fifty years. In physics, the problem of corruption goes back to the misdefinition of energy in 1686. A broader corruption that overcame a large part of science can be seen taking form during the sixties.

One element of the problem was a deterioration of standards. Science does not exist without the strictest standards. It is impossible to determine what is being done without standards defining the procedures. The standards started to deteriorate as science expanded. At this time, the standards are so deficient that determining what was done and what it means is usually impossible. You just have to go by a sales pitch.

The nature of peer review reflects the corruption of science. There is a sociology that surrounds deteriorated science which shows up in the meaning of peer review. Peer review now days is more of a social tool than a element of science. In fact, peer review never was an element of science.

Peer review began during the sixties, except that it wasn't called peer review until recently. At first, it didn't have a name. Editors were being overwhelmed by complexities, and they reached out to scientists for assistance. Editing was largely a process of looking for errors in the write-up and finding subject matter which was aligned on the scope of the publication. But it was an opportunity for trouble makers to attack and subvert the interests of opponents, and the process of publishing evolved into a battle for power in science.

Now days, greens use peer review as a tool for promoting global warming. They attack opposition as not being peer reviewed science. Greens are never scientists, but they speak for peer reviewed scientists, while their opponents do not.

Peer review beyond assistance to an editor can only corrupt science. The last thing it can do is determine validity of science. The validity of science cannot be determined until a large amount of surrounding knowledge has developed. Science studies the boundaries of knowledge. Only time can determine how that knowledge evolves.

The U.S. was highly educated in science during the fifties and sixties. Now science is a black hole to be avoided. Very few "Americans" go into science anymore. Professors and graduate students are mostly from outside the country.

It was only the deterioration of science and social awareness of science that allowed global warming to develop into a public concern. Scientific knowledge and truth do not develop into public concerns, only corruption does. It's like other complexities such as banking. Banking does not enter the news unless some corruption of banking occurs. Normal banking is not news. Corruptions result in a lot of counter-force, and a lot of force is required to promote corruptions. That conflict is the only thing global warming consists of.

Global warming caused by so-called greenhouse gases was a concern of a few marginal scientists since 1850. To normal scientists, it was a nonsubject. A small amount of something (carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) cannot heat a large amount of something (the atmosphere) through conduction. Most heat gets into the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation and radiates from the atmosphere into space. Radiation is infinitely easier from transparent gases than from opaque solids.

Science deteriorated, as knowledge of science disappeared in society. Without a knowledgeable society, accountability disappeared and standards were lowered in science. The chicken and egg of lack of knowledge and corruption went through a lot of generations getting to the pitched battle over global warming that now exists.

What the socialization of global warming shows is picking sides for power purposes. With power being the motive rather than objective reality, forces get strongly developed, while rationality and credibility are shamelessly trashed in a hysterical manner. Neither side knows a thing about the science of the subject, and they no longer care. Winning a mindless war is too important to let objective reality get in the way.

The Prion Example

An example of corrupt science which could never exist without a culture of corruption in science is prions supposedly creating diseases related to Mad Cow Disease. Prion is a label used for a protein which supposedly causes the disease. Proteins will never be causative agents for diseases, called pathogens. There has to be genetic material with pathogens. There can never be exceptions. And yet, an extremely elaborate scheme was developed to explain the pathogenesis of prions, and Stanley Prusiner got a Nobel prize for doing fake research on the subject.

The Yellowstone Example

The claim that Yellowstone is a super volcano rather than an asteroid hit is an example of how recent science became superficial. The difference would not have been missed several decades ago; but now days, science is more like a news blurb, where superficial and glitzy descriptions are more important than slow and meticulous evaluation.

The major differences between super volcanoes and asteroid hits are these: Super volcanoes produce large amounts of flowing magma which build to much depth, such as the Deccan Traps of India and the Siberian Traps. There are no such accumulations of magma around Yellowstone.

Super volcanoes pour magma from a small opening which disappears without showing a caldera. The source or opening cannot be located. But Yellowstone consists of little more than a supposed caldera, the original being hidden beneath the surface and smaller remnants migrating away from the source. The supposed caldera of Yellowstone is an asteroid crater.

Calderas cannot get super-sized due to laws of physics. Something would have to be moving upward, uniformly, over the entire area of the caldera simultaneously. Nothing can come up from the earth, uniformly, over a forty mile diameter area. If it were lava, the magma would be overwhelmingly massive, not disappearing, as with Yellowstone. This is why calderas cannot be located with real super volcanoes: the openings are too small and get over-burdened.

It is quite possible that the super volcanoes were caused by asteroids which went through the earth and hit the mantle on the other side. The result would be cracks in the mantle allowing much magma to escape. When an asteroid hits the outer side of the earth, the crater is self-sealing and does not allow large amounts of magma to escape as demonstrated with the Chicxulub asteroid crater near Yucatan.