The claimed science for greenhouse effects is total fakery. As fakery, it cannot be published the way science is supposed to be published. Methodology is not significantly described, while key information that is needed for evaluation is omitted. Critics cannot explain a science when there is no science to the subject. When Senator Inhofe says the subject is a hoax, no one knows what he means, and he gets ridiculed for the oddity of his statement. There have been many scientists who have made similar condemnations, but explanations cannot be produced for the public due to the quagmire which fake science creates. However, applying accumulated knowledge to the claimed science shows that the procedures themselves are a fraud.

The general problem with the fake science is that the subject matter is too complex and random to be reduced to scientific methods of measurement. Weather shows what the problem is. It cannot be predicted for more than a few days due to the randomness of effects. Randomness cannot be converted into rationality. Climate has more randomness than weather, because it is largely long-term weather.

There is another dimension to the problem of creating a science for climate. Climatology grows out of physics, where physicists ran into similar, insurmountable problems so often in the past than they acquired a habit of faking the results. As a consequence, the background physics is strewn with errors and corruptions. An example is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It is the workhorse of climatology, as it states how much radiation is given off by matter at any particular temperature. It indicates about 20 times or more too much radiation. For a correction, there would need to be at least one twentieth as much global warming as climatologists claim. Reduce the 2°C concern by a factor of 20, and no one would spend one minute worrying about global warming. Now apply that standard to almost every point in climatology, and that's what critics mean by fraud, hoax, scam, etc.

But the problem is not just in numbers and equations, it's in methods of proceeding. Real scientists do not take off down the paths which climatologists have been going down. Modelers pretend to account for every molecule in the air, oceans and ice for the next century. It's a degree of fakery unprecedented by scammers over the past several millennia. Old style fakes have never achieved such a degree of concealment and unaccountability with government sanction and financing and media blessings. Actually, the same is true throughout physics, but only climatology has come to the surface in public concerns.

Over-simplification allows corruption to be portrayed as knowledge. Produce a slogan or quip, and it has to be true. How could physics be that corrupt and put men on the moon? Modern technology seems to say science is impeccable. To some extent, it is the complexities of technology that sent engineering and physics in opposite directions. Engineering is largely limited to Newton's laws and trial-and-error procedures. The product tests the adequacy. But the increased complexities made physics, with no test of truth, ever more corrupt. Correct physics ended with Newton's laws, which are easily verified, in 1687. One year earlier, an incorrect definition of kinetic energy took form in a mocking rebuttal of previous concepts by Gottfried Leibniz. The insurmountable abstractions which followed were met with fakery and fraud.

The first major fraud of physics was James Joule supposedly determining how much heat is produced through motion by stirring water in a wooden bucket. There were no thermal conductivity coefficients at that time (1845) to determine where the heat was going. So he said he took care of environmental effects by doing an extra run. With about an hour of stirring, he said he got 0.5°F temperature increase. The added heat would have disappeared in the environment in about 30 seconds—in effect, as fast as he was adding it. Physicists then claimed that it proved the Leibniz definition of kinetic energy to be correct, meaning proportional to mass times velocity squared rather than mass times velocity, which is now called momentum. To tell the difference between the two alternatives, two points of measurement are needed to determine rate of change of varying components. Yet physicists claim Joule settled the argument with a single point of measurement. The impeccability is supposed to be in the fact that Joule was only off by four parts per thousand from modern measurements. Since Joule had no real method of measurement, it means modern measurements are also fake.

Physicists get by with fakery a lot easier than biologists, because they conceal everything in incongruous math. Entire subjects such as relativity and quantum mechanics are contrived out of nonsense. Nonsense is “nonfalsifiable,” as Popper described it. Millions of lines of relativity equations are written without an error, because there is no objective reality with it to test correctness.

Climatology is an offshoot of physics resulting in the fakery of physics being brought into the subject. But climatology is a little more tangible than most physics, which sheds more light upon procedures. To reduce exposure of climatology fakery to light, publications omit descriptions of procedures. Key information that is needed for evaluation is not published. The publications are about the equivalent of news blurbs but spiked with nonsensical jargon and meaningless math which is supposed to look like science. All critics can do is generalize with words like fraud, hoax and scam.

The ultimate hoax of fake global warming science is the use of “radiative transfer equations” to determine how much heat is produced by increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The procedure is to slice the atmosphere into numerous thin sections and calculate radiation going into and out of each one. The need for this method is supposedly in the fact that the atmosphere gets thinner as it goes upward, which makes each section different. When added all up there is supposedly 3.7 watts per square meter less energy escaping into space upon doubling the CO2 than coming in from the sun, which causes a buildup of heat. How could we have gotten just the right amount if our procedures weren’t flawless? By starting at the desired end point.

The degree of complexity in heat transfer and transformation in the atmosphere is beyond scientific measurement or calculation. In fact, it is impossible to determine what the procedure was supposed to be with the radiative transfer equations. Implicitly, the amount of radiation getting to the top of the atmosphere was determined, but almost no radiation gets to the top. It almost all exits from throughout the atmosphere. The amount of radiation leaving from anywhere in the atmosphere cannot be determined, as radiation is continuously being emitted, absorbed, transformed and re-emitted from every point in the atmosphere. All the while 15-30% of the radiation is escaping into space. Wikipedia states that 15-30% of the infrared radiation goes around greenhouse gases and into space. The range of 15 to 30% means 50 or 100% uncertainty. How often is even more uncertain. Yet the radiative transfer equations supposedly determined the total that did not escape with about 1% error.

There can never be an average difference between the amount of radiation exiting the planet and entering, because equilibrium makes both the same. Climatologists say the equilibrium temperature is shifted upward. That claim is a contradiction, but even if it were true, there can never be the 3.7 W/m² difference where there is equilibrium. There is a closed loop of contradictions in saying there is a difference, which is used for calculating temperature increase, while equilibrium does not allow a difference. In other words, equilibrium is so complex that it cannot be observed, measured or calculated for pinning down a quantity of differences. And then equilibrium temperature cannot be pushed upward, because exiting events and locations are virtually unlimited resulting in an equilibrium temperature determined by the mass which is radiating, not some miniscule churning somewhere in the middle of it all. A gate half open will not keep in half the sheep. The CO2 molecules in the air supposedly close the gate by some miniscule amount, which the sheep could not care less about.

But CO2 does not close the gate by any amount, because it doesn’t matter how heat gets into the atmosphere. Large amounts of energy move back and forth between the ground and atmosphere, as shown in the energy distribution schemes of climatologists. Regardless of where the energy is or how it gets there, it will exit into space until the temperature of the total mass causes the escape into space to equal the amount entering from the sun. The total, average temperature stays the same regardless of the other factors.

The energy distribution schemes of climatologists show that energy on the surface of the earth leaves as 79% radiation and 21% conduction and evaporation. White hot metals could not easily emit 79% radiation under atmospheric conditions. Climatologists were forced into a ridiculously high number for radiation by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to their energy budget. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant shows too much radiation given off by a factor of at least 20, and maybe 30-50. In actuality, the cool surface temperature of the earth, at 15°C global average, with a rough surface and some wind, would emit about 1-3% of the energy as radiation. With so little radiation, there could not be a greenhouse effect, even if climatologists were right about everything else. They would have to reduce their claims of global warming by a factor of at least 20, and no one would care about greenhouse gases.

There are 2,500 air molecules surrounding each CO2 molecule, when the concentration of CO2 in the air is 400 parts per million. This means each CO2 molecule must be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility. Climatologists claim the CO2 is about the same temperature as the rest of the air, as it would have to be. How then does the heat flow through the CO2 and into 2,500 times as many air molecules. There is no such mechanism.

It’s strange that science is considered to be so impeccable by persons who know nothing about science. Science is the most complex thing humans do, and close to the most invisible and unaccountable. The usual assumption and claim is that peer review purifies science. There is no such thing as purifying real science, particularly since science operates at the boundaries of knowledge. Correct science builds upon other correct science, while errors fall to the wayside. Trying to use peer review to purify could only be a social process, not a scientific process. It purifies a power structure, not science. Every tyranny requires a purifying process to eliminate dissent, because united they stand, divided they fall.

Science Home Page