In this video I use the most basic transitive logic in order to prove that the modern scientific method has committed such a scale of an error that it indicates a fundamental, systemic, structural flaw in the method. The global scientific machine is proven to be capable of making such gargantuan of mistakes that it seemingly renders the method of the machine entirely amiss.
Climate of Sophistry 
My Master’s thesis supervisor just wrote to me about my last video.
“Hi Joe,
This is not a new topic. There have always been bandwagons and they can sometimes distract
people from actually doing good science.
Nothing is perfect in life, and that is true of science too. But just as democracy is the worst
form of government except for all the other kinds, so it is for the scientific method.
Science cannot be done by decree or by fiat. It works only if findings can be independently verified
by honest scientists.
Excuse me for being blunt.
It is clear that you do not have enough to do. I should talk to your supervisor about finding you more work
to keep you busy at something scientifically profitable..
Cheers, and best wishes”
I wrote back:
“I made that video at home, during personal time. No need to try to threaten me. How unbecoming and disappointing of you.
I am very sorry that you believe in flat Earth theory. It is unbelievable to me that you would be a flat-Earther…and yet.”
And what is he saying…that the scientific method is the worst form of doing science!!?? So that makes it OK for flat Earth theory to be modern science?????? LOL!!!
My disagreement would be with the assumption that “A” is true.
Let “A” = “good math”
“B” = “flat-Earth math”
“C” = “climate-science math”
So, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C is perfectly good logic. The problem, though, is NOT with the logic, but rather with the underlying premise, “A = B”. That premise is false.
If good math equals flat-earth math, and flat-earth math equals climate science, then “good math equals climate science” is true .
But if “A = B” is false, then “A = C” is false.
The correction to that premise is that A does NOT equal B, and so the correct logic would be:
If A does NOT equal B, and B equals C, then A does NOT equal C.
If good math does NOT equal flat-Earth math, and flat-Earth math equals climate science, then good math does NOT equal climate science.
I guess I also do not have a life. (^_^)
On the other hand, I just wrote this:
https://hubpages.com/politics/Climate-Crisis-Hysteria-Is-Corrupting-Civilization
I think we’re saying the same thing…lol
Hello good sir!
I’m just a random internet stranger who stumbled upon this blog a month ago and is now a reader who waits for new posts with impatience. Thank you for maintaining this island of sanity amidst the ocean of clown world.
I was wondering what do you think about Nikolov-Zeller hypothesis? Mr. Nikolov appears to share your view on the absurdity of greenhouse gas theory and his and Zeller’s speculation looks quite interesting.
Cheers! I certainly agree with those fellows.
… just a little something I whipped up to add clarity:
That’s very good!
If only we had listened to all of the experts from the past we could still have:-
1. The Sun still revolving around the Earth.
2. No need for doctors to bother wasting precious time washing their hands with the dead piling up outside the clinics.
3. No pesky invisible micro-organisms – can’t see ’em then they don’t exist.
4. Banting’s diabetes patients could all have died by not receiving his insulin treatment which the Royal Society decreed was an inhuman waste of time.
5. Ulcers would still be caused by stress instead of those pesky invisible non existent Micro-organisms.
One could go on but why bother ?
How anyone can support “consensus” group think is beyond me.
Shine a blue light onto a white sphere.
The illuminated half of the sphere is now colored blue.
Next, divide blue by four, and that’s the average amount of blue for the whole sphere.
The whole sphere, thus, on average is one fourth as blue as the hemisphere. Even the non-illuminated, white half of the sphere is one fourth blue, when the blue light is turned on.
I love mathemagic?
Joseph,
The email did not come across as aggressive to me as it seems to have for you. The choice of wording was not brash and emotional like you would if someone was threatening you openly. It seems two fold or rather can be taken two ways.
In plain speech: “Joe we have to work with what we have it’s not perfect but we need to make a living. Many upstarts think they can change the system. Science won’t change unless more honest people are directing it. You would be better off doing your normal work, keeping your nose down and stay out of the political arena before you get in trouble or fired.”
That’s one way of interpenetrating the message.
The more harsh way would be, “If you mess with my job security I’ll make things harder on you don’t frack with the status quo”.
Since you know the guy and I don’t you can figure out which version fits him more. keep in mind that people do change. Indeed he may have underlined a passive aggressive approach. In other words a friendly reminder ‘this time’. Perhaps he was told to warn you. Perhaps he means well. Perhaps he was baiting you.
According to climate “scientists”, the temperature of an object is set by its emission surface area. We can test this by putting an ice cube onto a hibachi grill set to 300°F. The ice cube never melts. Why? 300°F -> 1800 W/m^2, Divided by 6 sides -> 300 W/m^2 = <0°C.
That's the new "science". Soooo stupid!
That is a great one Zoe Phin.
Zoe,
Do you EVER sleep? I’m up all the time because I’m a vampire but you…
RK, please correct a typo in your splendid graphic: “SPHEICAL”.
Thanks Joe, excellent video and thanks to Robert Kernodle as well for his superb graphic, now on PSI: https://principia-scientific.org/transitive-logic-exposes-major-flaw-in-scientific-method/
Hans S.,
Crap, crap, crap, crap, crap ! — How could I possibly have missed that — I’ll get on it right away.
Thanks, and I apologize for the stupidity.
Fixed, Hans S.
Thanks RK. Please don’t regard a typo as stupidity. The brain fills in the missing bits, not just of words but also images, experiences and concepts, which is exactly what is happening with the flat earthers. They simply can not see what is wrong with averaging day + night. After all, mathematically speaking it’s perfect; piity them.
Very nice example Zoe Phin. Exactly.
Joe – another killer blow. Thinking of the ARGHE zealots, CO2 is defined as a ‘well-mixed’ gas. My question is: where is it well mixed? The troposphere? Maybe. The stratosphere and beyond? What keeps it up there when convection stops, being heavier than O & N?
If CO2 is prevalent only in the troposphere, which I consider likely, then, by definition, in any standard atmosphere, it can never be a method which causes surface heating. Excess heat can’t be conducted nor convected to the space sink. Radiative gases are coolants.
Joe – somehow you need to be connected with #Trump’s people as he seeks to reorientate the EPA. Opening a Twitter account would be a great start.
Yah maybe I’ll do that.
HI Joseph,
The basic flaw in all climate theory is the belief that temperature is equal to the mean kinetic energy. 100 C water and 100 C steam have the same temperature but the 100 C steam contains 540 calories/gram more energy than the 100 C water. That energy is contained in the kinetic energy of the steam molecules and since the thermometer is calibrated with water it does to give an accurate reading of the kinetic energy of a gas.
The greatest error of modern physics is the acceptance of Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect, creating the photon and making light both a wave and a particle. The photoelectric effect is another example of the piezo electric effect where the distortion of a crystal (by a electromagnetic wave0 changes the balance between attractive and repelling force in the crystal causing a current.
Light is a disturbance wave traveling in the electric and magnetic field of objects and its sped is determined by the strength of those fields.