How Could All Those Scientists Be Wrong?
Any power structure that polices itself will eventually promote corruption.
Physics deteriorated into corruption very early on due to abstractness and complexity of the subject matter. There weren't a variety of ways to construct experiments as occurs in biology. The experiments in physics are so complex and expensive that they only get produced once. This result violates a major rule of science, which is reproducibility. It means there is no verification and corrupters have nothing to lose in corrupting what they do.
Now days, science and communication are so advanced that basic knowledge can be used to show errors in physics. Errors are in conflict with all surrounding realities. Therefore, criticism which applies developed knowledge is quite easy.
The response in physics has been to make subject matter so complex that no one can determine what was done. Supposedly, such darkness immunizes corruption from criticism. But it doesn't. So the next level of response is dogmatism which subjectively imposes the results upon society and disallows criticism.
A democratic society is supposed to be resistant to such imposed reality. But physics was made impenetrable through complex math which does not have a real meaning. It is used as nothing more than a cover for corruption.
Still, once physicists commit themselves to a position, the errors can be proven through basic scientific knowledge. This is true for the misdefinition of energy and global warming.
The first major fraud in physics was James Joule pretending to measure heat by stirring water in a wooden bucket in 1845 to determine the definition of kinetic energy. A single point of measurement will not determine the correct equation. Nothing about the result says what the result should be. Yet physicists pretend to be verifying and improving the precision of Joule's measurement ever since and using it as a constant in referencing energy.
Energy Misdefined is a section of this web site where I show simple and unquestionable mathematical proof of the error based on the original logic used by physicists to determine the definition of kinetic energy in 1686. The math that I use can be verified by a high school student who has studied physics and calculus, considering that verifying is much easier than deriving. About 90% of physics is corrupted by the error.
One reason why physicists didn't derive the same proof is because a method didn't exist until rocket equations were developed during WWII by the Germans and then brought into the US afterwards. The rocket equations can be used to replace gravity in the primary test for kinetic energy. But physicists were already committed to the error, had compounded numerous other errors on top of it and had converted physics into a fraud machine incapable of producing rationality.
A Fake Measurement of Gravity Waves is so far removed from technological possibilities that it is not an attempt to be credible; it is an imposition defying anyone to question what physicists do. Absurdities: 1. The distance being measured is 100 million times smaller than the vibration of atoms. That's a noise to signal ratio of 100 million. Supposedly super cooling can reduce the vibrations of atoms, except that the measuring device was not cooled. Cooling would require enclosure in glass, which would have destroyed the preposterously claimed precision of the measurement, and five devices would have to be cooled. 2. The claimed mechanism for motion control used inductive force, like a speaker. That mechanism cannot control location, as it is similar to pulling with a spring. 3. The only method of feedback for control at such a minute level would have been looking through the final measurement device (photodetector) which would have removed the measurement. etc., etc.
Global Warming Contrived Through Fake Science is a pretense of concepts such as heat getting trapped in the atmosphere, while a major part of the arriving sun's energy moves into and out of the atmosphere on an hourly basis. It's like trapping water in a river. Physicists replaced the logic with a fake number (3.7 watts per square meter) derived through fake radiative transfer equations to represent the heating. No one can say what the number means, as there are no square meters in the atmosphere. The number is a rate of energy addition, which cannot be converted into a temperature; yet 1°C is claimed. Supposedly, a reversal of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant converts the rate into a temperature, while reversing the constant is not valid, as it applies to a surface, and there is no surface involved, and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant shows about 40 times too much radiation at normal temperatures.
Looking Out the Window
We commonly hear nonscientific persons say they can look out the window and see global warming. No scientist finds relevance in what someone sees looking out the window. Why don't they look out the window in the wintertime? Nothing ever stays the same with climate and weather. What people are seeing is nothing compared to the droughts and extremes that occur somewhere every year and always have.
Melting in the Arctic is caused by warm ocean water flowing over the Bering Strait, not warm air which has no heat capacity. If all of the heat which humans supposedly added to the atmosphere went into the top 100 meters of the ocean, the ocean surface would only increase 0.025°C in temperature. Melting ice requires even more heat. It means nothing about the temperature of water or ice on a global scale is relevant to the supposed global warming caused by humans. Northern Pacific Ocean water is heating for a mysterious reason which appears to be volcanic activity on the ocean floor. This effect is in addition to the planet warming constantly between ice ages, which occurs over a mere 12,000 years. During this short time between ice ages, ocean levels rise 400 feet, while glaciers melt.
Global warming is such a preposterous assumption that reasonable scientists rejected the subject until recently. Now, science is so corrupt that global warming errors prevail. The claimed 97% agreement is total contrivance. Scientists are not allowed to express opinions in peer reviewed publications, where the fake 97% number was derived through guessing and then published as peer reviewed science. The breakdown used to be 50-50, and would still be, but critics of global warming are now getting shoved out of science, so they conceal their views. Science by terrorism shows who is producing the fraud.
The price society is paying for these errors is getting extreme, as major social fantasies are developing around global warming, renewable energy, carbon-free electric vehicles, self-driving vehicles, artificial intelligence and travel to other planets. The clutter alone makes renewable energy a myth. The number of transmission lines would need to be multiplied by more than a thousand to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar. The problem is, those sources of energy are too dilute. It takes too much metal to concentrate them. The damage to the environment is already unacceptable.
The basis for the claimed 33°C is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (SBC). It states how much radiation is given off by all matter at any particular temperature. When the surface of the earth emits the same amount of radiation as acquired from the sun, the SBC says the surface must be -18°C. But the average temperature of the near surface atmosphere is said to be 15°C, which is 33°C warmer.
So the atmosphere caused the surface temperature to be 33°C warmer than it would be otherwise, to the extent that the SBC is correct, which it is not. The problem is in claiming that nothing but greenhouse gases could be the cause of the temperature increase in the atmosphere.
Typically, when fakes get caught at such an extreme gaffe, they would say they were misinterpreted. But they don't say how much of the 33°C is due to anything other than greenhouse gases. The meaning always indicates that all 33°C is caused by greenhouse gases.
This may be why persons who have never studied an iota of science in their lives call their critics "flat earthers" and "anti-science." They probably assume the