Social deterioration is occurring everywhere. The cause is power mongering by incompetent persons.
What is the Science of Global Warming?
Carbon dioxide is a power mongering tool, not a real scientific subject. Incompetent persons need to contrive reality, because objective reality exposes their incompetence and corruptness.
The contrivances are not handled as objective reality is, where standards of rationality are used to determine what truth is. Instead, contrivers wall themselves off from critics and try to fantasize reality into existence. As fantasizers, they make themselves superior to their critics.
An example is electric vehicles, which are built into the carbon dioxide hype. Sales are dead-panned, while the fantasizers pretend that the gasoline engine is ready to be outlawed by Congress.
The supposed science of global warming is what Al Gore produced and teaches in the schools with his movie. Government web sites on global warming are used as the reference for the science, and they do exactly the same thing Al Gore did.
Al Gore's movie takes us around the world to see how life is being destroyed by heat. Snow is melting too fast on Mr. Kilimanjaro. Polar bears do no have enough ice. The graph for carbon dioxide in the air keeps going up.
Anything more complex than eating with a fork and spoon is science to persons who don't handle science well. Nothing in the Al Gore-bureaucrat repertoire is anything resembling science. It's closer to a holiday advertisement. There are no cause-and-effect relationships described.
Science is much more basic, or it doesn't exist. The purpose of science is to develop knowledge. knowledge only exists when the underlying realities are correct and explain cause-and-effect relationships. Where do you find that science for global warming? Scientists cannot find it. The most basic research publications are so fraudulent that no one can extract science from them.
I summarize the errors in the origins of basic science publications on global warming. Global warming promoters do not consider such information to be relevant. They assume science is the equivalent of a vacation advertisement. What global warming promoters mean by science is structured power, not measured evidence.
Conservatives are fraudulent gate keepers on global warming. They say the science is flawless perfection, but global warming is not occurring because of clouds. They do nothing to inform society on the basic science or corrupt technology beyond superficial and argumentative trivia.
The promoters of global warming concerns (greens) will not touch the science of the subject at this time beyond the claim that 97% of the scientists agree with them, which is supposed to mean they could not be wrong. A proper perspective is needed for this claim. Many conservatives have shown, clearly and simply, that the 97% number was acquired through despicable means—going through published science and subjectively picking out something that was not there. But the criticism needs to be much more basic than that. Even if a more valid method of acquiring the number 97% were used, such as a valid questionnaire, creating such a number shows the problem in how society views science. They view science as an expert opinion. How do you define an expert?
An opinion is not science regardless of where it comes from. Scientists can have opinions, and good judgment may be called for. But the opinions of scientists are not science. Evolved knowledge exists when a person can decide for himself without someone else's opinion. To rely upon experts is to invite, and literally create, corruption. You get what you pay for. When you pay for power mongering corruption, you get power mongering corruption.
The contrast with real science shows the error. The public is not seeing what real science is. If they could, they would laugh in Al Gore's face instead of putting his garbage in the schools. Real science is so hard to imagine by the public that they don't know how far off they are. People can dig into politics and sociology without getting lost. Time has shown that the public cannot dig into science without hitting a brick wall which they do not understand. A little bit of looking into science gets them into more trouble than they understand.
What real science is is testing and measuring the boundaries of knowledge in reliable, reproducible and accountable ways. It is so technically demanding that it cannot be done in trivial ways. This is not to say the public must avoid scientific subjects; it's saying they need to adhere to standards of rationality to prevent them from stepping off the walkway.
All the public needs to do is to view the science that is available to them through proper standards of rationality. Rationality is the answer. That means looking at the evidence, not the opinions. Real evidence with necessary explanations looks nothing like contrivance and opinions. Rationality is giving the viewers the ability to make their own decisions through the evidence available. Corrupters will never allow viewers to derive their own opinions. They simply sell a subject through subjective values and say, just trust us.
(Evidence vs. Opinion: Evidence is objective; opinion is subjective. Objective reality is defined by consistent relationships to all surrounding realities. Opinions lack relationships to surrounding realities.)
With proper standards of rationality, the public can go however far in science they can understand the evidence. If all they are looking at is the sales pitch, they have no business telling anyone anything about the subject.
Anyone who cannot understand why the dilution factor totally precludes the existence of greenhouse gases has no business telling anyone anything about global warming.
The technology fraud shows that the problem is not a scientific dispute; it is a problem of standards of rationality. Here is an undisputable point which shows the problem: Autos and trucks run real well on natural gas, as some of them are doing. Why then use natural gas to generate electricity for electric automobiles?
Any time energy is touched, a large part is lost, and nowhere more so than in using electricity. An electric turbine will have about 40% efficiency, while a natural gas auto will have about 30% efficiency. But the electric system loses energy in many places. Transformers get 30-90% efficiency, and many are needed. High voltage transformers can get up to 90% efficiency when expensive designs are used, but low voltage (household level) transformers get 30-50% efficiency. Power lines lose 20-50% depending upon length. Applications of electricity (motors or brakes) get less than 40% efficiency.
It means electric autos would recover about 10% of the initial energy of natural gas, while burning natural gas in an engine would recover about 30% of the energy. It means electric autos are no way to conserve energy or remove CO2 from the air.
Electricity is a convenience thing, not an efficiency thing. It's for specialized devices around a kitchen or demanding manufacturing, not for transportation and running the world. Somehow, greens got the notion that electricity is supposed to replace all other sources of energy, 100%.
How Some Scientists Got Global Warming Wrong
Some scientists don't understand how weak radiation is. When you focus on radiation as a phenomenon without standing back and adding it all up into an integrated complexity, radiation stands out more than it should. It should look like a very minor part of total energy. Some scientists don't add enough of the other forms of energy to the perspective.
For some reason which would not be a coincidence, the constant which represents the strength of radiation, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, shows something like twenty to fifty times too much energy in radiation at normal temperatures. This constant was created more than a hundred years ago.
Physicists rationalize the obvious absurdity in a ridiculously high Stefan-Boltzmann constant as an invisible effect, where radiation is both emitted and absorbed at the same time causing only the difference to be visible. The claim is that only the visible difference is weak, while a lot more radiation is moving into and out of matter.
The claimed invisible effect is absurd and unscientific. It doesn't explain what it attempts to rationalize. If radiation looks weak, it is going to look exactly the same, weak, no matter what is happening in the background.
Here's is how the logic works: If you heat up a brick ten degrees and set it on a table, it of course looks exactly like a brick which has not been heated. If you put your hand near it, you can't tell the difference. You have to touch the brick to tell the difference. Each wall of the room will be in equilibrium, which means it is absorbing and emitting the same amount of radiation. The walls could be emitting and absorbing 100 watts per square meter, or maybe 1000 watts per square meter. The brick would feel exactly the same if the walls were emitting 100 w/m² or 1000 w/m². The background equilibrium does not change what the brick is doing. In the same way, the amount of energy being emitted and absorbed does not explain why radiation looks a lot weaker than the Stefan-Boltzmann constant says it is.
Here's a reason why radiation is not stronger than it appears to be: A heat lamp is sometimes used for tanning skin. Care must be taken to avoid burning the skin. If 20-50 times as much radiation were being emitted and absorbed in an invisible way, as indicated by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, the skin would get fried awful fast.
In other words, there cannot be an invisible amount of energy being emitted and absorbed, because some things would respond to all of it. There is no such thing as invisible radiation to absorbers of radiation such as skin. What you see is what you get.
The logic of trying to explain away the overly high number for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not correct logic, because the question is the amount of radiation being added, which is independent of the amount of radiation which always exists in the background. To say the increase doesn't look as large as it is because of the background is switching from increase to background in an invalid way. There is always a lot of energy above absolute zero, and it is independent of the question of increase.
There are places where the absurdity of the overly large Stefan-Boltzmann constant creates contradictions. In estimating the amount of radiation which leaves the surface of the earth, the Kiehl-Trenberth model is used. This model was created in 1997 and shows up in every IPCC report since then. The Kiehl-Trenberth model indicates that 79% of the energy leaving the surface of the earth is radiation. This assumption is so ridiculous that the NASA lab attempted to whittle it down to radiation being 41% of the energy leaving the surface of the earth, the rest leaving as conduction, convection and evaporation. This NASA energy budget existed for several years but was recently changed to show the same 79% as the Kiehl-Trenberth model.
What these changes show is that the Kiehl-Trenberth model forces an absurdly large amount of radiation into the analysis, because the Stefan-Boltzmann constant was used to calculate the radiation. NASA tried to make the amount of radiation look more realistic by reducing it to 41%. But this put them in conflict with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant in addition to several IPCC reports. So NASA redesigned their energy budget to show 79% radiation in spite to the absurdity of that large of a number.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant forces such an absurdly large amount of radiation onto the energy budget that climatologists cannot live with the result, but they have no choice about it as long a the Stefan-Boltzmann constant defines the subject. Even the 41% radiation which NASA temporarily tried to show is absurdly high. It should be 1-3% of the energy leaving the surface of the earth is in the form of radiation. White hot metals could not easily emit 79% radiation in an atmospheric environment. It is in the range of what light bulbs do in a vacuum.
The concept of greenhouse gases heating the atmosphere began with a few non-credible physicists in 1850, which was half a century before the Stefan-Boltzmann constant existed. It shows that some physicists have a warped concept of how strong radiation is, and that assumption warped the formation of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. You might think the Stefan-Boltzmann constant grew out of measurements independent of warped assumptions. That's not what has been happening in physics. Physicists have been starting at the desired end-point and contriving a method of getting there at least since the fake measurement of Joule's constant in 1845.
Science Requires Strict Boundaries
It's ok to promote values, opinions, errors and beliefs. It's not ok to call such things science or impose them as if they were science. Real science used to strictly purge such things from science. Now those things are being imposed as if they were science. It's an extreme deterioration of science and social standards.
There is nothing related to global warming (all climatology) which does not fail this test. Not only is the claimed science in error, and not only is it being imposed, it is being represented as values, opinions, errors and beliefs instead of verifiable evidence.
The image of this process is as obnoxious to real scientists as a scam by a used car salesman or snake root oil being sold as a medical remedy. The process of pushing science subjectively is a similarly destructive fraud.
It's ok to be wrong about science as long as it is not a fake representation of science or something imposed through force or authority.
Global warming would not exist as a social concern if it were not being imposed through force or authority. The process and force is self-condemning. Truth never benefits from imposition by force. If it cannot stand up to criticism and evidence, it is not socially constructive.
Social standards are in an extreme state of deterioration. Global warming could not exist as a social issue otherwise.