Climatology is a new science largely because climate is so complex and expansive that the tools used for its study are the most advanced and expensive--like satellite measurements which are demanding and computer models which are extremely complex. So the assumption is that some argument could be expected in the results, at least around the fringes, if not in the unquestionable physics which climatology is based on, ha ha.
But that's not the primary problem. There's a pattern and practice of contriving science, and it gets most developed in the abstractness and illusiveness of physics. Contrivance is as exploitable in science as derivatives are on Wall Street. Authority is more unquestionable when the results are farther removed from evidence and logic.
The most extreme example of such contrivance is relativity. The Big Bang theory of cosmological origins is a close second, and even biology picked up a similar disease with the prion theory of a brain protein doing everything DNA does.
So let's look at relativity in its broadest perspective. The most apparent conflict with logic is right at the starting point. After getting past the starting point, the closed loops of logic are so self-feeding that there is no objective reality to apply to the logic. Actually, there are several starting points to the broad subject of relativity, and each of them creates a gross conflict with the normal logic of science.
Chronologically, a physicist develops the logic of relativity by setting two or more objects in motion and then muddling their relationships to a point of confusing the reader. The confusion is supposedly resolved by shifting reference frames in ways which are not valid.
First, the claim is made that the observer must be the ultimate reference for motion. Then the claim is made that the velocity of light is always the same relative to the observer. Since the observer is one of the receiving points for light, the velocity of light is determined by a receiving point. Effect thereby precedes cause. Logic never allows effect to precede cause. All science is dependent upon proper cause-and-effect relationships. Otherwise, there is no ability to describe laws which allow evaluation and prediction as a form of knowledge.
To allow effect to precede cause with motion is like speeding down the highway at 80 mph and then telling the patrolman that the speed hasn't been determined yet. If the driver is going to Seattle the speed will be 60 mph, and if he is going to Los Angeles the speed will be 65 mph. The destination doesn't determine the speed, and the same must be true for the speed of light.
This is why critics say the speed of light must be determined by an etheric medium which light must travel through. Supposedly, the Mickelson-Morley experiment of more than a century ago determined that there is no such etheric medium. But failing to find something in science doesn't prove that it doesn't exist. It's like jumping into the ocean and saying the Titanic isn't there. There are any number of explanations for failing to find the etheric medium with the test that is used. The best explanation is that the etheric medium moves with masses such as the earth, so looking for it's motion relative to the earth would be a failure. Since all molecular, atomic and subatomic motion creates waves, which would be motion in an etheric medium, it is logical that the etheric medium would move with the mass of the earth. There have also been numerous criticisms of the analysis of the data.
The point is that the false logic of relativity is built upon one invalid assumption after another. Now, relate this claim to the starting point. Some scientist--sometimes the ones who prevail--will build invalid assumptions upon each other when they can get by with it. The claimed unquestionability of climate science must be viewed in this perspective.
But we've barely scratched the surface of the invalid assumptions of relativity. Another invalid claim of relativity is that the multiple velocities of the potential observers (receiving points for light) can be explained and evaluated through multiple reference frames. Each reference frame is a universe of its own. There are no relationships between one reference frame and another. Therefore, it is not valid to use more than one reference frame in the scientific analysis of the laws of nature for this universe. The mechanism of using multiple reference frames in relativity is not valid.
When using more than one reference frame to account for more than one velocity, light does not have a single velocity. Yet, it is supposed to have energy in packets called photons. Light cannot have definable energy when it has more than one velocity.
Perhaps the most visible and shameless contempt for the logic of valid science is in the use of an extremely simplistic equation for concluding that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. The equation is referred to as the Lorentz equation, though there are other Lorentz equations also. The equation says that momentum of an object equals one divided by the square root of one minus v squared over c squared. v squared is the velocity of any object, and c squared is the velocity of light. Due to simple algebra, the quantity of v can never get larger than the quantity c. The net result (momentum) approaches infinity as the v gets the same size as the c.
The shameless thing about this equation is that it has no relationship to anything in physics, science or the laws of nature. It is nothing but a fake equation for limiting the size of the v to the size of the c. How can it represent a law of the universe when it has no relationship to anything in science or the laws of the universe? It's like writing an equation which says no automobile can go faster than 65 mph and then handing it to the patrolman when he says you are speeding.
This degree of shameless fakery shows what happens when science is sheltered from openness and accountability to the public. The basic science of climate change is similarly sheltered from openness and accountability to the public, contrary to the harping about settled science by stooges who have never taken a significant science course in their lives including Al Gore.
In a previous article titled "
What Happens if You Actually Look into the Science of Climate Change?", I explain how a fudge factor is used to supposedly calculate how much heat carbon dioxide produces in the atmosphere. The fudge factor is another shameless fraud being used to dupe the public much like the Lorentz equation for limited the speed of light in relativity.
I explain all of these points in some detail on my web site at:
nov47.com
For similar criticisms of physics, see "The Virtues of Heresy" by Hilton Ratcliffe.
Gary Novak is mushroom scientist with Masters Degree in Microbiology and does independent research on a farm where he lives. Gary runs Science is Broken and Global Warming Science. Gary can be reached at: g432@nov47.com
