 |
|
 |
October 16, 2020 Politicians and lawyers have no way of knowing what is happening in science; it's way over their heads. But journalists are not supposed to be getting anything wrong. They didn't just get global warming wrong, they created global warming fraud by bringing fraud science to the surface and preventing criticism of it. They used nonscientists as the experts, such as Al Gore, who had no way of knowing he was being duped, and using the IPCC as the final arbitrators, while they are nothing but fakes being used to bypass real science. Liberal politicians getting global warming wrong is the right thing to do, because they are supposed to represent the official version of science that they are given. In a democracy, they represent. It is not right for journalists to get global warming wrong, because they have the responsibility of conveying reality properly to society. Journalists getting something wrong can lead to totalitarian fascism, which is what has been occurring. Science is too complex and detailed for nonscientists to evaluate. Yet journalists must report on it and they determine what reality is for society. They shouldn't have been drawing conclusions on global warming let alone prohibiting criticism of it. They said the science was settled. There is no such thing. Science operates at the boundaries of knowledge, which means it is not settled. Criticism is needed everywhere, how much more so at the boundaries of knowledge? Only corrupters try to prevent criticism of any subject. In other words, the handling of global warming was rotten to the core and journalists were instrumental in making it so. Science, particularly physics, has been overwhelmed by corruption. For journalists to miss that fact is dereliction. Journalists not only missed that critical fact, they were instrumental in brining it about. They brought corrupt science to the surface and prevented critics from correcting their errors. Real scientists were attacked and sometimes fired for trying to correct the errors. After that type of journalism has been occurring on global warming for fifteen years in a concerted manner and a prior fifteen years in a looser manner, the process has gotten extremely obnoxious. There are some strange characteristics that journalists have shown in that process. One of the oddities of know-nothings fixing science is their assumption that they know more than the scientists do. That problem first became visible with the creationists assuming they could out-science the scientists. They had a supposed geologists tell them that rocks can form in 500 years, and therefore dinosaur fossils were quite young and dinosaurs drowned in a flood ten thousand years ago. They also had a major lawyer tell them that micro-evolution is different from macro-evolution, and therefore no major evolution occurred, even though humans can observe change occuring in present time. With global warming, journalists claim real scientists are anti-science when trying to correct errors. Journalists should know the difference between criticism and corruption on any subject, but they have beem getting that point wrong on global warming. Nonscientists used to try to argue their position in opposing global warming truth; but they fell on their faces and reverted to promoting corrupt authority relying upon two sources: the IPCC and a fake "peer reviewed" publication claiming 97% of the scientists agree with them. The IPCC is nothing but political hacks assigned the task of imposing fake science on global warming onto society. Any scientists who do not go along get shoved out of the process. The 97% number is so fake that nonscientists have exposed it as such, but to no avail. The fakes went through scientific publications and guessed at the position of scientists, some of whom said that did not have that view. Regardless, how could there be 3% on the other side when no one can get a research grant while opposing the fraud? In other words, the nature of the process guaranteed the outcome. The process was a fraudulent means of justify a fraudulent position. Besides being a fraudulent representation of a scientific determination, the 97% claim converts science from an objective determination to a consensus process. The whole purpose of real science is to prevent that from happening. The fact that journalists do not allow science to escape the consensus trap should be a self-evident corruption of journalism; yet it goes on and on digging into the foundations of reliability ever deeper every day. As time goes on, the amount of human activity and resources that are demanded for the fraud get extreme. The requirement is in the tens of trillions of dollars now days. Environments are being destroyed, resources are being used up and the lower classes are being driven into homelessness paying for it. The victims have nothing to say about it. They pay ten times as much for the resulting electricity, so corporations can rip off the tax payers and rate payers for criminal activity on a
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
