There are wrong ways to communicate, just as there are wrong forms of behavior. Wrong is like subjective attack. Ad hominem attack is often criticized, being extremely common. But wrong communication also includes improper method of proceeding which guarantees incorrect results. The wrong method is to not find out and properly represent.

There is no excuse for getting something wrong when telling someone something. A person at least has the option of saying nothing. Proper methods of handling realities require verification of what is claimed to be fact. How could half of each side be saying the opposite, as with global warming? Relying upon scientists? People have a responsibility to know whether scientists are right or wrong or say nothing on the subject.

All complexities require proper methods of handing realities. Proper is that which produces desired and expected results. Improper methods produce misrepresented or misinterpreted results. Sight-of-hand and railroad jobs result from and require improper methods of handing realities. They cannot occur with proper methods of handing realities for the tautological reason that getting the right results is what defines proper methods.

The manner in which global warming is handled is to pick up assumptions from select surroundings without adequate understanding. Liberals look to other liberals; conservatives look to other conservatives. That method is doomed to failure. It strips complexities from the subject.

At this time the concept of global warming has shrunk to a reliance upon 97% of the scientists being right. There used to be an attempt to look at the science, but all such attempts fell flat and left no other basis for beliefs than 97% of the scientists being right.

If such a methodology were reliable society would still believe that the sun goes around the earth and the earth is flat. Only one person believed otherwise until others were convinced.

A convincing process must be different from picking up something from surroundings. One requirement is to not go beyond what can be verified. The world being flat was not verifiable; the world being round was. With global warming, nothing is being verified.

Without proper methodology nothing can be improved. Knowledge always needs improving. It is infinitely complex. Borrowed reality is not. If scientists take care of the starting point, and nonscientists do the promoting, nothing can move forward.

The assumption of this arrangement is infallibility at the starting point. Science and technology start with a high degree of fallibility preceded by large amounts of error. Borrowing the information creates an end point. Global warming has no end point. Arguably, global warming doesn’t exist as science. Where is the end point which proves otherwise. It doesn’t exist.

There is nothing wrong with shifting the responsibilities onto the scientists, but there is no place for someone to borrow the assumptions and make claims without a responsibility for their claims, as occurs overwhelmingly with global warming. In other words, what are idiots doing telling us something on the subject when they don’t know what they are talking about? They make no distinction between proper and improper methods of handling realities.

One fact alone would correct the improper handling of realities. It is explanation. To explain claims would require understanding, move subjects forward and end the obstructionism of borrowed reality which has no validity.

Numerous critics have shown, with no realistic counter-argument, that the claimed 97% agreement by scientists on global warming is an invalid claim with no meaning or proper determination. There is no way to define what was supposedly agreed upon. Scientists do not take positions on generalizations; they look at infinitely complex details. Their views were guessed at.

Scientists are not allowed to disagree with the alarmist view without losing grants and the ability to publish. What is agreement under such conditions? Any scientist who disagrees must not allow anyone to know. How could there be three percent who disagreed, unless the end point was decided before the determination, as occurs with most of climatology research. And it was published in a peer reviewed science journal as if it were a scientific study. Proper methodology at handling realities does not allow such corruptions to occur or persist.

When recognized scientific fraud was in the media, several years ago, Congressman Dingell said his committee would look into it. Within hours, scientists held a meeting and concluded that they would police themselves. That was the end of the congressman’s plans for a hearing. Journalists told us how wonderful the scientists’ declaration was.

Where is accountability for the science which polices itself? Proper criticism would create accountability for science, but it is not allowed within science or without.

Why Science Errors Occurred

Science is no Longer Correcting Gnostic Assumptions

Science Home