Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,865
- 2,040
wow, we get more of the truth from Pravda than our own media AND Government...people better wake up to how they're being manipulated by SCIENCE and POLITICIANS in government
a lot of links in article at site
SNIP:
24.03.2014
By Gary Novak
For several years, critics of global warming (called deniers) have been exposing the nature of global warming propaganda as indistinguishable from religion due to an absence of objective reality and imposition of opinions and values. The critics/deniers themselves are seldom scientists, and they are not aware of the extent to which the same has become true throughout science.
Global warming serves as an informative example of the deterioration of science, since this issue has gained public exposure unlike anything else in science. There are other examples which are much more extreme and clear but not evaluated and criticized like global warming. The most extreme example is the "big bang" theory for origins of the material universe. (Big Bang: Contradictions in logic without evidence; and it's called science.) Physicists forgot to account for the amount of time required for the bang to occur and send galaxy-forming matter to the edges of the universe, so they now claim it occurred instantly without laws of physics, which they refer to as "inflation." A similar example which is more obscure is the claim that relativity supersedes Newton's laws in controlling the speed of light and energy dynamics.
Since these subjects are outside the public view, we can use global warming as the example of power mongers transforming science into religion as a means of imposing their values and corruptions onto everyone. There are two elements to the problem. First, there is a total absence of a scientific basis for global warming claims. Secondly, there is nothing but subjective opinions in the claims and impositions of global warming alarmists. These factors are inseparable and dependent upon each other. The fake claims could not be made if there were a true science at the origins of the subject; and the scientific fraud could not be sustained without fakery in the claims covering up the truth.
At the basis of global warming science are fake publications which describe nothing but modeling, which is not science. (How Modern Global Warming Science Took Form.) Fakes claimed to model every element of the atmosphere over the next century or more, while they described nothing for methodology which would allow criticism. The claims in the publications were self-contradictory and in conflict with real science. For example, they claimed to follow the heat produced by carbon dioxide through the atmosphere projected into the future, while they had no starting point for the amount of heat carbon dioxide should produce or a mechanism to explain how the heat is added to the atmosphere. The heat carbon dioxide should produce was the end point rather than the starting point for the modeling.
Climatologists cannot describe a mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. How can they model the result without knowing the mechanism? For awhile, they said the mechanism was near ground level, but it didn't wash, so they switch to an explanation about 9 kilometers up, which is even more ridiculous. If they don't know where it is occurring, they don't know how it is occurring or that it exists.
ALL of it here
Separation of Church and State Disappears with Global Warming - English pravda.ru
a lot of links in article at site
SNIP:
24.03.2014
By Gary Novak
For several years, critics of global warming (called deniers) have been exposing the nature of global warming propaganda as indistinguishable from religion due to an absence of objective reality and imposition of opinions and values. The critics/deniers themselves are seldom scientists, and they are not aware of the extent to which the same has become true throughout science.
Global warming serves as an informative example of the deterioration of science, since this issue has gained public exposure unlike anything else in science. There are other examples which are much more extreme and clear but not evaluated and criticized like global warming. The most extreme example is the "big bang" theory for origins of the material universe. (Big Bang: Contradictions in logic without evidence; and it's called science.) Physicists forgot to account for the amount of time required for the bang to occur and send galaxy-forming matter to the edges of the universe, so they now claim it occurred instantly without laws of physics, which they refer to as "inflation." A similar example which is more obscure is the claim that relativity supersedes Newton's laws in controlling the speed of light and energy dynamics.
Since these subjects are outside the public view, we can use global warming as the example of power mongers transforming science into religion as a means of imposing their values and corruptions onto everyone. There are two elements to the problem. First, there is a total absence of a scientific basis for global warming claims. Secondly, there is nothing but subjective opinions in the claims and impositions of global warming alarmists. These factors are inseparable and dependent upon each other. The fake claims could not be made if there were a true science at the origins of the subject; and the scientific fraud could not be sustained without fakery in the claims covering up the truth.
At the basis of global warming science are fake publications which describe nothing but modeling, which is not science. (How Modern Global Warming Science Took Form.) Fakes claimed to model every element of the atmosphere over the next century or more, while they described nothing for methodology which would allow criticism. The claims in the publications were self-contradictory and in conflict with real science. For example, they claimed to follow the heat produced by carbon dioxide through the atmosphere projected into the future, while they had no starting point for the amount of heat carbon dioxide should produce or a mechanism to explain how the heat is added to the atmosphere. The heat carbon dioxide should produce was the end point rather than the starting point for the modeling.
Climatologists cannot describe a mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. How can they model the result without knowing the mechanism? For awhile, they said the mechanism was near ground level, but it didn't wash, so they switch to an explanation about 9 kilometers up, which is even more ridiculous. If they don't know where it is occurring, they don't know how it is occurring or that it exists.
ALL of it here
Separation of Church and State Disappears with Global Warming - English pravda.ru
Can deny all they like, doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.
