The science problem wouldn't exist if there weren't a sociology problem. Science is self-correcting; sociology is not.

Promoters of global warming tell us about the science, while they are totally clueless on the science. People are supposed to be responsible for what they say. Second hand information is obnoxious; and it leads to a railroad job. Relying upon someone else as the excuse for being wrong is a guaranty of ruin for all, as global warming shows. If you think someone is right, that's your business and no one else's. If you are going to repeat what they say, you need to determine for yourself whether it is true before repeating it. Otherwise, the result is trash moving from place to place and getting worse each time it is repeated.

If the promoters of global warming were taking a political view, there would be no problem. They have a right to promote any politics they want. But that isn't what is happening. The promoters of global warming are taking a scientific position, which reduces the science to social fraud.

In politics, it may be appropriate to promote values. In science it's not. Politics is not a correcting process; it's a decision-making process. Science is a correcting process. That correcting process is being overwhelmed by corrupt sociology.

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 nothing but a railroad job.

There is only one form of science, because there is only one truth. Science has the purpose of improving the truth. Certainly, scientists have disagreements, but it's only the evidence and explanations that are relevant. Scientists evaluate. The evaluation process is being stripped from global warming, while stupidity is being forced down everyone's throats.

If claims included explanations and evidence, there would be no problem. In fact, this is true everywhere. Claims need to include explanations and evidence. The lack of explanations and evidence is railroading the subject of global warming. The promoters of global warming are not scientists enough to produce the explanations and evidence; so they have no business telling us anything about the science.

Some journalists are refusing to allow "deniers" (critics of global warming) to have a voice claiming journalists must promote the proper viewpoint of science. In saying that, they are claiming to be in the promoting business, which is somewhat true of journalism. Taking a position on science is not justifiable, and never is. Science is not a view; it's an evolution of truth. If the journalists required explanations and evidence with claims, there would be no problem. The promoters of error would fall flat, and people could decide for themselves. It's because of improper communication in allowing claims without evidence that journalists have to censor their views.

It's only because there are major forces behind the realities that it matters whether anyone is wrong, opinionated or corrupt. Deciders at every level are acting upon the unsubstantiated claims.