July 24, 2022

Human life requires solving problems. Problems are defined and solved as realities. There are proper and improper methods of handling realities, which is a very complex set of requirements. Therefore, getting to proper is not an easy task, and the result layers into three levels.

One level is of course improper methods, where rules are defied, such as lies that are weaponized by Trump and followers.

Another level is superficial normalcy but going along with the crowd rather than independently evaluating to determine correctness.

Then there is a verifying level, where all realities are evaluated to determine their meaning and accuracy.

No one could promote the fake science and technology that has taken over the social order if they cared enough about accuracy to evaluate the subject. Yet there is no visible evidence anymore of opposition to the frauds. Even the conservatives who oppose the concept of humans causing global warming do not actually evaluate the subject; they simply go along with a group who takes that position.

It isn't that there is no one aware of the frauds; it's that all opponents of the frauds have been silenced. Any number of scientists and engineers tried to correct the errors, but they were silenced and often lost their jobs.

As time goes on, fake science and technology are being handled as word salad. That means words are rearranged for exploitation purposes with no relationship to objective reality.

An example is looking out the window to see what carbon dioxide is doing. Heat is not a synonym for greenhouse gasses except in the word salad of frauds. The word salad-standard is an insult to real scientists, as if they wasted eight years of training and the rest of their lives studying something that has no relevance to complex questions.

Physics has largely deteriorated into fraud due to the extreme abstractness and darkness of obscurity which removed openness and accountability. So incompetent physicists feed the public such garbage as some greenhouse gases, such as methane or halocarbons, being hundreds or thousands of times stronger than carbon dioxide. What does stronger mean? The concept is beyond ridiculous.

Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it as the radiation travels a short distance through the atmosphere, which is called saturation. Even fraud-physicists do not deny that saturation exists, while they defy the concept in their claims.

When carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it, what would stronger be? Absorbing more radiation than exists?

Incompetent physicists derive such concepts by putting gas in a tube in a laboratory and seeing how much radiation it absorbs as indicated by the height of peaks on a graph. In such spectrometers, excess radiation is used with small amounts of gas to assure complete absorption doesn't occur and flatten some peaks.

Physicists then draw conclusions on such results in a simplistic manner. They don't evaluate the process in the atmosphere, because the complexities are beyond their ability to evaluate abstract realities. A peak on a graph is perceivable; absorption in the atmosphere is abstract.