Science is extending basic knowledge into unknown areas. All knowledge is abstract. That means nonperceivable. Basic reality is the reality that other realities depend upon.

Basic realities must be more precisely determined than nonbasic realities. Extended realities will be in error, if basic realities are not exactly right. And basic realities tend to take the form of rules or laws which have clear boundaries around them.

Science has to be correct for these reasons. Any error results in extended errors and false assumptions in place of knowledge.

Science is different from engineering in that the product of science is knowledge, while the product of engineering is technology which is nonbasic. Each point of engineering applies to a narrowly defined purpose only, and any method that is reproducible will suffice.

That means the complexities of science cannot be represented as mathematical functions which simplify. Simplification omits elements which result in false representations and assumption.

Math can be used in acquiring scientific knowledge as a tool while not being a representation of complexities as math functions.

Physicists don't know that. They try to produce math functions as a product of physics while assuming they are producing science. Everything physicists do is in error, which is layered on top of layers of errors. However, physicists often act as super engineers where the rules of engineering are suitable in using math functions to make approximations.

Math functions cannot represent complex products of science, because complexities are beyond mathematical expression. Attempting to represent complexities in terms of math functions, as physicists do, results in stripping away elements of the subject and generating false assumptions.

Climate is not only too complex for mathematical expression, it is too dynamic for math. Math doesn't change while looking at it, which means it is not dynamic. So it cannot represent dynamic processes such as climate. Simple and unvarying dynamics, such as a clock or wave, can be mathematically expressed, but complex dynamics such as climate are not unvarying enough for mathematical expression.

Electron activity is often simple and unvarying enough for math functions as in chemical engineering. So incompetent physicists assume they can apply that standard to everything they do and that math is a higher standard rather than a corruption even where complexities are misrepresented.

What physicists do in attempting to express complexities mathematically is ignore too many obvious factors. An example is claiming to calculate the amount of heating of the oceans that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes. They ignore such simple things as heat capacity which shows there is not enough heat in the atmosphere to have the slightest effect upon ocean temperatures. (Math Of Ocean Heating)

One of the things physicists try to do is average out complexities and represent average as a number. They do that with non-uniformities which cannot be represented with an average. The average motion of a meat grinder is zero, if most of the complexities are ignored and only the circular motion is looked at.

With climate, each of the complex elements are handled as averages by physicists. A lot of approximating is needed to do that. In engineering, approximations are acceptable when totally accounted for in staying within limits. Climate is nowhere near uniform enough for the approximating and averaging that physicists do.

The process of averaging and approximating over complexities is not suitable for a scientific result, because omitted complexities will always result in erroneous assumptions. In engineering, a product tests suitability of approximation, while the complexities of knowledge in science are degraded by approximations. Certainly there are endless questions in science, as evidence is the usual result rather than conclusions. But evidence is vastly different from erroneous representations. Evidence is progress toward the definitiveness that science produces.

Why not then relate to climate as an engineering challenge instead of scientific knowledge? Because the product as erroneous climatology is social upheaval, not technology, which cannot set the result within suitable boundaries, and corrections cannot be made without reliable knowledge.

Science can be expressed in graphical form. But graphs must be products of measurement rather than math functions due to the complexities.

Measurement is highly mathematical in science, but the math is a tool and not cannot be in the form of a math function for end results where complexities are represented. Physicists don't know the difference between mathematics of measurement and mathematical functions as knowledge products.

When the mathematics of rockets is used to prove energy to be misdefined and a different definition to be correct, is the product in the math? Numbers prove the result. But the rocket is used, because of its unvarying simplicity; and the numbers are still the tools.

Equations such as Newton's laws or kinetic energy equalling mv, momentum, are valid in representing one element without additional complexities.

In other words, the problem is simply proper representation. When complexities are not following a math function, they cannot be represented with a math function; yet physicists attempt to do so.

Physicists tried to use math to quantitate heating of the atmosphere by carbon dioxide. Nonscientists are forcing those numbers down our throats claiming a certain temperature increase will result from some amount of carbon dioxide. There is no such thing possible. The atmosphere and climate are too complex and dynamic to be expressed in terms of math functions. The math used for climate heating is fakery through and through, as each element of the fake math (radiative transfer equations) shows.

The radiative transfer equations (RTEs) were used to create a math function for heating of the atmosphere. The end result of the RTEs was to produce this math function as a natural log curve:

Heat increase (W/m²) = 5.35 ln C/C₀

This equations states that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (natural log of 2 times 5.35) will result in a heat increase of 3.708 watts per square meter. When graphed, the curve of the natural log function is this:

The 3.7 watts per square meter are then converted into a temperature increase of 1°C by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

The curve has no relationship to reality. It says that one molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubling to two molecules would increase the temperature of the entire atmosphere by 1°C.

What it means is that physicists wanted a math function as a pretext for a scientific result and tailored the math function for one point at present conditions, while all other points on the curve are ridiculous.

So the number, 3.7 W/m² upon doubling CO2, is used as the predictive factor for how much heating will occur, as humans add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Know-nothing journalists and promoters of the cause force that number down our throats as unquestionable scientific fact. It's nothing but technology-destroying and social-destroying fraud.

It occurs, because fakery makes incompetent know-nothings successful power mongers in dominating our lives. Only fakery does that. Rationality exposes the corrupters for what they are; so they need fakery to dominate society.

Modeling Is Not Science

Modeling is used in an attempt to convert atmospheric complexities to math functions. The models vary by hundreds of percents, while the fudge factor for calculating heating has supposedly only 1% error. Neither exist in reality, as there is no such thing as greenhouse gases heating the atmosphere.

Modeling is not a scientific procedure. Science is the process of measuring, not guessing.

Modeling is an offshoot of statistics. Technically, statistics are not scientific procedures either, as they are not measurements but interpretations or presentations. Statistics are needed in the soft science and social sciences, but they do nothing but corrupt the hard sciences, as the nonexistent greenhouse effect shows.

The difference is basic vs. nonbasic realities, which is also the difference between science and engineering. In nonbasic areas, methods are needed for extracting information from complexities. In basic areas, more exactness is needed than in nonbasic areas.

Phylogenetics is an example of statistics corrupting science. That process is an attempt to determine taxonomic relationships through statistics. It has been doing nothing but scrambling the age-old taxonomic keys with no relationship to reality. An example is claiming the morel mushroom has an evolutionary age of 129 million years, while it was a single-celled yeast 50 thousand years ago.

The main problem with phylogenetics is that too little information is acquired for the monumental conclusions. It's like buying a house by looking at one square inch of surface area.

Math procedures in science are as valid as they are simplified. At the most simple and valid level, math is how measurements are viewed. As the math gets complex, subjective influences enter the process. Statistical procedures are so arbitrary and complex that they are too disconnected from objective measurements to be reliable in the areas of the most abstract basics of science.

Physicists extract information out of complexities through statistics, much as computers extract images out of scans. But extracting meaning out of complexities is not quite the same thing as statistics; and viewing is not quite the same thing as measuring. Part of the difference is that statistical procedures are constructed in an arbitrary manner and then applied with more arbitrary decisions.

Average deviation is more valid than standard deviation. There was no necessary reason to replace average deviation with standard deviation. Someone assumed that throwing in an arbitrary would look more authoritative. Multiplying that mentality out by a long ways is what the problem of statistics is. Part of the reason for the arbitrariness of statistics is that it allows incompetent corrupters to get whatever result they want out of the arbitraries.

The problem is that the arbitraries and motives that go into complex math have a corrupting influence which leads to contrivance with no relationship to reality such as modeling nonexistent greenhouse effects and destroying taxonomy with phylogenetics.

DNA is extremely informative; but it takes a lot more information than phylogenetics and more reliable mathematics than statistics to get useful results.