Nonscientists who can't grasp what science is telll us they can look out the window and see global warming. They think we are "flat earthers" for not agreeing with them and we live in a box or phone booth. This is the state of gullibility out of which social fantasies grow.

Here is a nonscientific fact which the imaginers should not have missed: If they cannot evaluate and respond to science criticism, why are they telling us what the science is? What are they adding to the subject that we could not have gotten from the same sources they got their fantasies from?

Science must be based on reproducible measurements, which means in writing. It must be stabilized in the written medium to be accountably reproducible. There is too much evasiveness in the fantasies being called science.

Journalists have recently been misdirecting society on science. Good quality science would have prevented such a thing but deterioration of science made it vulnerable to a railroad job. Journalists did some shaping by bringing out corrupt science at the expense of better science.

Of course, motives did the shaping. There is an underlying force involved, which is the promotion of causes. What we see in recent causes is that it is not a result that shapes a cause, it is the exploitation of reality. A cause must in fact be a contrivance to exploit the realities, because fake reality is "nonfalsifiable," while truth is not. There is no such thing as being wrong when contriving reality.

Pretending that every fact of life has an element of global warming with it is a scheme by fakes to railroad reality. No scientists agree with them. But they defy the scientists. The motive is to contrive fakery as more malleable than truth. Truth leaves incompetents behind; fakery puts them in control of our lives.

Global warming is so preposterous that real scientists have always rejected it, but now they get shoved out and lose grants and the ability to publish; so they conceal their views.

What preposterous means is that trapping heat in the atmosphere is too ridiculous to be called science. Heat moves into and out of the atmosphere constantly. Temperatures vary 20 degrees or more between night and day. How could some of it get trapped and not the rest? It would be like trapping water in a river. The term “heat trapping gas” was contrived for propaganda purposes.

Most heat gets into the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation, as wind blows over the surface. Some scientists were saying there is no other way to get heat into the atmosphere than greenhouse gases. They recently stopped saying that, but activists and journalists didn't notice. Doesn't such an error say there are some real idiots in science? Yet propaganda from the journalists has convinced most persons that there can be no such thing as errors in science.

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. 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. 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, ocean levels rise 400 feet, while glaciers melt.

A Railroad Job on Science

Science is sealed off from the public, as the errors show. It's the suppression of criticism that removes access to the public. Critics would be explaining the errors, but scientists get shoved out if they significantly criticize, and journalists purge the media of science criticism saying that critics are flat earthers and anti-science.

If constructive standards were being followed, criticism would be encouraged instead of prevented. Criticism is the fool-proof method of correcting realities. All truth and constructivity benefit from criticism. There is no constructive reason to stifle criticism. Preventing criticism is the proof at the starting point that corruption is being promoted.

The claimed reasons for stifling criticism are always wrong. Supposedly, critics are corrupting a subject or the minds of the unwary. That would be impossible if counter-criticism were being produced. The truth easily bowls over the corruption. But incompetent corrupters cannot bowl over truth, so they oppose criticism. If they don't understand science well enough to respond to criticism in a constructive manner, they have no business speaking for anyone on the subject. Of course, the activist-journalists are totally incapable of responding to criticism on science, technology and the developed social fantasies, which is why they should not be promoting their ignorance.

Society is producing more and more fakery, as incompetents push their way into the social structures with no ability to do what they are supposed to be doing. Fakery is a tool for incompetents which allows them to acquire power without knowing what they are doing.

A social force has been developing around fake realities related to global warming, renewable energy, carbon free electric vehicles, self-driving vehicles, artificial intelligence and travel to other planets. A facade of science is used for justification. Where is the science? No evidence of the science is produced.

Not far below the surface of these subjects are big problems which do not have solutions. Renewable energy as solar and wind require 100% back up, which is never going to be practical beyond muddling the expenses into other costs, which hits a brick wall at 15%, as occurred in Germany and Texas. Electric vehicles lose most of the energy between power plants and vehicles, because handling electricity is that way. Self-driving vehicles require more complex analysis than humans are capable of producing. Artificial intelligence can never solve problems which humans do not understand. Space travel cannot occur due to the force of acceleration and loss of mass with energy, which are problems which cannot be solved.

These problems have long ago been evaluated at a technical level. What is different is a rejection of rationality in the exploitation of subject matter. Absurd claims are made with no concern for developed knowledge.

The fakery doesn't rise to the level of propaganda in its degree of rationality. Complexities are not being developed and questions are not answered. The result is contrivance similar to the imposition of ideology which occurs in a dictatorship but more as a belief system than a political position.

Critics of global warming hype have noticed long ago that alarmists were promoting a belief system rather than science. The word believe is used a lot without explanation. Absence of explanation moves the subject out of science and into religion.

This phenomenon is more of a social standard than a response to problems, and therefore it permeates a lot of contrived realities. Usually, a religion is organized around a subject and purpose. The new phenomenon is not organized; it is simply what incompetent persons are left with after stripping rationality from social standards.

In earlier times, absence of rationality was undeveloped as primitiveness. It included a lot of superstition, but it was simplistic and disconnected from social realities. The modern variation is integrated into complex social realities resulting in highly developed fantasies in place of simplistic superstitions.

The fantasies of modern ideology take off as tangents to complex social realities. As questions arise, the most unlikely alternatives are built up by fantasizers as alternative realities. As the alternative realities get developed, they are imposed as unquestionable facts.

One of the first examples was creationism. It supposedly grew out of Christianity, except that only an illusive starting point relates to Christianity. The starting point is the assumption that God created everything about ten thousand years ago. Most Christians have not made that assumption in modern times, as science has been integrated into modern Christianity.

Shortly after Darwin proposed the theory of biological evolution, the Pope said he agrees with biological evolution, except that it is under God's control. Creationists deny that there is evolution shaping biology, and they try to out-science the scientists claiming dinosaurs drowned in a flood ten thousand years ago.

Creationism didn't grow out of Christianity; it grew out of the ability of incompetent and irrational persons to prevail over a group of like-minded persons. This dynamic isn't a product of religion; it's a product of stripping rationality from the social order. Incompetents push their way into positions of power and shove out rational persons causing the level of rationality to deteriorate in society.

Global warming was the first major fantasy developed broadly in society as a result of reduced rationality. It started as a scientific argument but drifted into an ideological religious position, as corrupters prevailed against rationality. As the global warming fantasy grew, numerous related contrivances were built upon it including renewable energy, carbon free electric vehicles, self-driving vehicles, artificial intelligence and travel to other planets.

These subjects are not exposed to rational analysis. At first, engineers tried to explain the errors, but they were ignored, as fantasizers took over the media and forced the fakery onto everyone. Even the oil companies can no longer speak out against global warming fakery. In fact, the conservatives who oppose the global warming concept must now claim that they agree with the principle but not the amount.

Such caving is a result of overwhelming imposition of fakery upon society. Critics of global warming hype were at first called deniers; now they are said to be anti-science. Fakery is promoted as the real science, and criticism is condemned as anti-science.

If these subjects were being handled in a rational manner, criticism would have prevented them from ever seeing the light of day. But no criticism is allowed. It's the method of proceeding that is the problem. It's not a question of disagreement. Disagreement is not allowed. It is imposition of fakery through force.

As an example of force, I used to try to argue global warming on the web sites which created discussions of that subject. I was said to be a troll for disagreeing with them and kicked off three web sites. Those types of web sites no longer exist, as the fakery is now too vulnerable to allow criticism.

There is an Increasing Science Problem in Society

Everywhere in society, a science problem is developing. It's growing out of a need for scientific knowledge and an inability to meet the demands.

There used to be enough science educated persons to keep this subject on track. Society is no longer science educated. Very few "Americans" go into science anymore.

Science has gotten very complex—in fact, the most complex thing humans do. The complexity evolves, as complexities build upon complexities. Only specialists are in contact with most of it.

But it isn't just the details that are being missed; more importantly, it's the standards and process that go with science that are the problem. A non-science oriented society is de-learning the standards and process that go with science.

The standards and process of science include such basics as proper representation, which were once taught in every area at universities. Misrepresentation is becoming the new norm, as the need to exploit is overwhelming the need to be accurate. Another standard is to look and find out before exposing everyone to ignorance. Another is allowing criticism and evaluating criticism to determine why it exists. These standards are required to objectively evaluate a subject.

Fantasies don't exist at these standards.

Of course, Al Gore and the science journalists are not capable of evaluating science criticism. They have no business telling anyone anything about the subject when they can't evaluate criticism on the subject.

Now days it's socially unacceptable to criticize the subject being reported upon rather than promote and fantasize. That's the new abnormal, not the rational standard.

In response to complaints, a concept of balanced journalism has developed. Balanced means including some of the falsehoods with the truth, but never including some of the truth with the falsehoods. It doesn't mean criticism and open and free discussion.

A journalistic drift began with the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour. The observable premise was that whatever governmental authorities had to say was news, whether it was true or false, and whatever outsiders had to say was irrelevant, whether true or false. This mentality drifted into a platform set of standards for promoting authority and power as fact and criticism of it as falsehood.

This mentality fell into place automatically, because it is based on bigotry, which is the assumption that power is virtue and represents truth, while powerlessness is corruption and represents falsehood. Since the deciding is done where the power is located, bigotry was just waiting to be unleashed.

The Ulterior Motive for Social Fantasies is Mongering Power

Journalists will not get real on fantasy technology starting with fake renewables. Technology is not as mysterious as science. When journalists cannot be told they are wrong, they have a motive problem. The motive is that incompetents become somebodies when they are in your face telling you something that is obnoxious.

Creationism is a clear example of how the process works. No one would have cared how wrong religious fanatics were, except they were trying to re-write the science of evolution. They worked their way into the schools and courts trying to impose fake science onto scientists. They had to be confronted because of the harm they were doing to science imposing falsehoods onto society.

Renewable fantasies are a re-run of creationism but more broadly based. Renewable fantasizers impose themselves onto opponents by being obnoxious. They can't be corrected, because being wrong is the only thing that makes them relevant. Truth would make them irrelevant, because truth is objective and independent of who says so. Errors are subjective and dependent upon who says so. So wannabes make themselves somebodies by being wrong and imposing about something that matters.

Developing the imposing wrongs into social fantasies creates a source of corrupt power. Getting a few dupes to believe in the errors sanctifies the process. Corporations love it, because there is no better way to make money than on waste, fraud, and abuse. Engineers love it, because working on unsolvable problems is much more interesting and lucrative than doing something mundane.