What happens if science is actually uncorrectable, or becomes uncorrectable?  This is the response I get from other scientists who I ask to consider the skeptical arguments which debunk climate alarm:

“since we expect climate scientists to trust our own work and expertise in astrophysics, then why wouldn’t we return that trust to the experts in climate science?”

And that is exactly how science and politics can be taken over with a simulacrum or simulation of science and merit.  Like Chicken Little, you scream that the sky is falling and you claim that all scientists agree with you and you don’t listen to criticism because of the Precautionary Principle, and etc.  

Don’t they understand what can go wrong with that sort of naivety?  Are they truly that philosophically and politically and historically and even scientifically illiterate?  Politics has existed long, long before science ever did, and politics will certainly use whatever falsities it can for its gain of power.

If political climate alarm was a vehicle that was intending to do good for humanity, then I might be able to see myself supporting it even if I knew it was fraudulent.  Well…even then, if you have a good reason to do something then that reason can be stated on its own and can support itself, and there should be no need to deceive.  But if you read what the climate alarmists write, their writing is clearly hate speech and they openly state that their position and that their desire is to murder billions of people.  They actually, literally, write such hate speech openly, and believe it or not, proudly.  They simply seem to be a class of people, a class of mind, that is obsessed with genocide and murder and killing and they have invented and then tacked on to this idea of Chicken Little climate alarmism in order to justify their goals.

If you haven’t seen it yet but want the reference, check out the last few minutes of this video (the link is time-indexed so will bring you to the right place): https://youtu.be/G5bwaf9QXro?t=3885.

WARNING:  You might find the climate alarmist quotations discussed at that video link to be disturbing, scary, and threatening, and you definitely should not let your children see or watch it, or if you do, to watch it with them and explain to them that you will keep them safe and that these things won’t happen to them.  It’s just so truly vile to have to be exposed to these hate-speech thoughts of people who desire mass-murder and child abuse, so be warned.

I think that science has the potential to be correctable, whereas I know that when politics corrects itself it typically and readily has done so only at the expense of the death of millions and millions of people.  We do not want politics to do this again but this time in the name and with the supposed justification of science.


This entry was posted in Religion of Climate Change and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Uncorrectable

  1. Joe Postma says:

    I mean when you meet a climate alarmist or environmentalist, you need to consider the fact that you are facing someone who has adopted a clear intent to have you and your children murdered. Not only that, you are facing someone who has adopted a clear intent to even have themselves and their own children murdered as long as you and your children are murdered along with them.
    You really have to wonder what you’re doing in proximity to such a person, and you should probably find a safe way to exit such proximity.

    Stay safe.

  2. Quick question Joe. You’ve mentioned a few times that you were taught the Greenhouse Effect flat earth physics diagram in your undergraduate degree. May I ask why do you think you didn’t pick up on the pseudoscience back then? What conditions prevailed back then that obscured the errors from you?

  3. Now that’s an excellent question! Great of you to find the dichotomy there and realize that it is a question. If we can solve that question, perhaps we could solve it for others?

    Let’s see. Well, when I was in undergrad, it was simple: I trusted what I was being told. I saw the flat Earth, saw how it was mathematically formulated, and thought that since it was an average, then everything is OK. I simply didn’t question it or think about it. That’s what happens in a class-room: you accept what you are told. You believe it because nothing being taught in class would be wrong anymore, would it? How could they teach wrong things in a classroom, when in a classroom the point is to get the correct answers?

    Wow…that is scary. Doesn’t that show just how corruptible, corrupt, dangerous and useless our education system actually is. It’s all brain washing and conditioning at a subconscious level. How can anything taught in a class room be wrong when the point of being in a class room is to learn true things that you get rewarded for repeating with check marks and higher grades?

    So to answer your question, I think the answer is that the conditions which prevailed were: naivety. And that is a term I’ve used in recent articles criticizing how academics so readily accept bad science from “high” sources – they naively believe that other people are doing right things.

    What broke my naivety, then? I would say first, it was simply in reading reading “Fit for Life” upon recommendation of a girl I was dating. That started the process. Then it was solidified totally when I read “State of Fear” upon recommendation from another girl I was dating, and decided to look into the criticisms and their answers myself.

    Why would that work for me? I don’t know.

    But the key is that a person has to begin to realize that the world is not true as it has been presented to them. You have to realize just how much we take everything for granted, without truly understanding where these ideas came from. It takes a lot of work and a lot of critical thinking…and this is something that I guess most people aren’t interested in doing, or maybe they would be, but they’re too propagandized and distracted with trivia.

  4. Joe, you’ve hit several nails bang on the head here. First, we all need more than one girlfriend to get our brain into gear (lol). Second, seriously this time, in order to learn new skills, we need a basis from which to start the learning process – without a plan (a basis) we can not learn new tricks. We literally need to learn to crawl before we can walk and before we can run. Third, academia is just as mentally lazy as the rest if us and when a good idea comes along (i.e. a good plan, an apparently solid argument) then fellow academics will readily agree with that idea; call it appeal to authority, which we al do all of the time. Fourth, before you know it, such a new idea becomes the standard and nobody questions it anymore, we’re all too busy and text books need to be printed for the new school/academic year. A pile of rubble will look as solid from a distance as an outcrop of granite, but only when you try to build a house upon it do you find that the foundations start to crumble when building on the pile of rubble. It takes time to build a house (proverbially speaking) so by the time the foundations start to crumble, a paradigm shift needs to be invoked to abandon the building and start a new house on the granite. The entire climate alarm “house” is built on rubble and you have clearly shown why that is the case. Now is the time for academia to confront the egos of the proponents to keep on building rather than abandon the building and start afresh. That’s the biggest hurdle you and all of us face: ego tripping; nodoby likes to be proven wrong.

  5. Thanks for the answer. If you don’t mind I’m going to copy that and store it for use in arguments against believers with university degrees. I’m in a “debate” at this moment with a guy who has a PhD in “Sustainabilty”. Can you believe that such a qualification even exists? Straight out of Agenda 21 and into your university degree.

    He claims university level physics as part of his education but has responded to my assertion that cold doesn’t heat hot and that the greenhouse effect university diagrams show exactly that, by linking the skepticalscience website and ad hominems about me suffering from the Dunning Krueger effect.

    Looking back on my own school days I was very lucky to have had a mother who was a teacher, but who also allowed me to believe I was the cleverest of the two of us. I did indeed grow up with Dunning Krueger tendencies, but it meant I was always getting in trouble for challenging my teachers. By the time I left highschool teachers hadceitger proven themselves capable to me and worth listening to or I had judged them incompetent and stayed away from taking subjects they taught.

    Bullshit is bullshit and my physics O level grade B and Maths O level grade B are no hinderence to seeing it. When I read a physics paper these days, I have realised that every equation is preceded and followed by English that explains it. All I generally need is a logical mind to test the propositions written in English. I have occasionally laboured for an hour looking up Greek symbols and verifying the maths behind the English, but generally I get by without needing to do too much. One plus one still equals two and its not hard to spot where someone has said it makes three instead.

  6. “Straight out of Agenda 21 and into your university degree.”

    It seems that university is the smartest stupidest place to introduce ideas designed to kill large numbers of people and to halt the progress of productivity.

    “by linking the skepticalscience website and ad hominems about me suffering from the Dunning Krueger effect”

    The most remarkable and absurd thing about the Dunning Kruger Effect is that the people who believe themselves to be the smartest, the people who society holds up and presents to be the smartest…are in fact the most deluded people of all. It’s a simulacrum. Even if a person knows a bunch of correct things, but doesn’t actually truly understand why they are correct, then you merely have a simulacrum of someone intelligent and hence you have the Dunning Kruger Effect. Given our discussion of the education system, we are producing people only with the simulacrum of intelligence with no true cognitive critical thinking skills at all. My critical thinking skills came from far outside of a university classroom. And when I talk with colleagues, I am astounded at their lack of critical thinking ability. So no…the most disturbing aspect of all of this is that the supposed academic elite are the sufferers of the Dunning Kruger Effect. Of course there are some good academics, and these are the ones we like to emulate, but the majority of them are smart-stupid and are exemplars of the absurd form of the D-K Effect. This fellow you’re dealing with…you must understand that he can’t think. He hasn’t been introduced to thinking in his life yet. He believes he has, but he hasn’t. He thinks that thinking means being correct, where being correct has been defined for him as getting the checkmark provided by the majority of other people. This is what he thinks is logic. Show him the flat Earth model and ask him what he thinks about it…he will undoubtedly justify flat Earth physics to your face, totally cluelessly.

    “who also allowed me to believe I was the cleverest of the two of us. I did indeed grow up with Dunning Krueger tendencies, but it meant I was always getting in trouble for challenging my teachers”

    Believing in your own abilities is extremely important. I think that’s what is actually drowned out in most kids in the education system – other people have the answers, you surely do not!

    “When I read a physics paper these days, I have realised that every equation is preceded and followed by English that explains it. All I generally need is a logical mind to test the propositions written in English”

    Wonderful! That’s exactly what I told layman people to do when reading my early papers…just understand the English surrounding the equations.

    “One plus one still equals two and its not hard to spot where someone has said it makes three instead.”

    What a great statement! 🙂

  7. Truthseeker says:

    Joseph, something for you to comment on …

    Click to access New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

    Using actual data for multiple planetary bodies to refute the radiative greenhouse effect … what a concept!

  8. Oh yes, they’re quite good, those two scientists. Not D-K Effect types.

    Pertinent quote:

    Atmospheric back radiation and surface temperature: Since (according to Eq. 10b) the equilibrium GMAT of a planet is mainly determined by the TOA solar irradiance and surface atmospheric pressure, the down-welling LW radiation appears to be globally a product of the air temperature rather than a driver of the surface warming. In other words, on a planetary scale, the so-called back radiation is a consequence of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. This explains the broad variation in the size of the observed downwelling LW flux among celestial bodies irrespective of the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Therefore, a change in this thermal flux brought about by a shift in atmospheric LW emissivity cannot be expected to impact the global surface temperature.

    I can follow their argument and maths no problems but the maths would be too much for lay people. Hence my approach is to simply show the fundamentals of where things go wrong with climate alarm, because it is actually quite simple, and you learn some real physics and logic in the process!

  9. Regarding their quote, this is what I have said as well, long ago: the thermal energy in the atmosphere and the atmosphere’s radiation is a consequence of its temperature, not its cause! There’s no independent internal source of radiation, for goodness’ sake.

  10. I tend to just hold to the Clausius statement on the second law. “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a warmer one”
    If I hold fast to this statement as an absolute then it doesn’t matter how mathmatically complex the sophistry is that is thrown back at me. Show me how heat actually flowing from hot to cold or show me that, cold to hot is not the sole result of your system.
    Before I discovered there were people with physics degrees who had already disputed the greenhouse effect, I was seeking out Alarmists on Facebook pages and testing my discovery. I thought the easiest way to find out if I was making a fool of myself was to put myself in places where people could do so. I started as an Alarmist after all. I didn’t want Al Gore to be wrong. I simply couldn’t shake the conviction that I was right that the so called greenhouse effect was actually caused by the weight of the atmosphere pushing down from above. By the time I discovered Nikolov and Zeller about six moths later, I’d already dispatched a dozen PhDs and hundreds of Al Gore wannabes. It was just like being back in school again with a bad teacher. The teacher would say something, I’d ask a question. They would answer, I would tell them their answer was stupid. I would get kicked out of class 😂😂
    When I found the slayers and others who had similar theories, I was even more belligerent and obnoxious to begin with. Every tiny hole I tried to widen and falsify. I had lost all respect for all academics and as far as I was concerned by this point I was just as likely to have the best understanding of how the atmosphere worked as any physicist. I noticed the slight differences in theories of individual anti greenhouse effect crusaders and I picked the ones that made most logical sense to me. The difference with the slayers and complentary scientists is that they didn’t throw me out of class. They earned my trust and demonstrated that they knew more than I did. They proved that they were worth listening to and learning from

  11. Autumn Cote says:

    Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to WriterBeat.com? I’ll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. w There is no fee; I’m simply trying to add more content diversity for our community and I liked what you wrote. If “OK” please let me know via email.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s