 |
| Figure 1 |
Success of Cosmology: 4.6% Climatology: 1.47%
PART 1: CLIMATOLOGY
In the interests of fairness and full disclosure, it is not the entire climatology discipline on trial here, but the core of it which to some extent has been politically captured to form the basis of the hypothesis that CO2 produced by humans will produce a runaway greenhouse effect (But that CO2, the vast majority without humans will not).
There was a successful push to conflate the broad strokes field of the Environmental Sciences, which always covered a number of disciplines (climatology being one, oceanography, atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and ecology) with the term " Climate Science" in an effort to make it less empirical and more political.
In some form or other, they now all hinge on policies shaped by presupposing the assertion that the human produced portion of CO2 is causing any warming measured last century and arguably the first couple of years of this century. It projects climate as being linear, not cyclical. Total CO2 constitutes a practically non existent 0.04% of our atmosphere and supposedly has the ability not just to influence climate in some small way, but along with other supposed greenhouse gasses (ie methane & water vapour which you hear far less about but the models do include them) somehow are what drives climate here on earth.
The climatology behind the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis (formally AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming) also relies on the assertion there is a natural CO2 balance and that extra human produced CO2 does not get absorbed as the natural portion does in part of of this balance and supposedly traps surplus heat. This heat, it claims, does not have a feedback cycle and simply builds up. The problem with this reasoning is that there has NOT been a natural balance! The long term and seemingly unstoppable trend, other than some short term exceptions.
CO2 through the Eons
We are in a severe CO2 draught. The CO2 in our atmosphere is continually sequestered in rock and oceans, and according to the mainstream there isn’t enough to liberate through burning oil, and hydrocarbons even if we burned it ALL tomorrow. Most of it remains trapped in rock and material such as the Chalky White Cliffs of Dover. Humans might delay the process but ultimately all life on earth will probably slowly vanish as levels begin dropping below 180ppm.
Levels were off the charts before life (Nars is 96% CO2). The Cambrian Explosion has the highest reliable levels since life started in earnest. CO2 levels were at a minimum 10 times higher, the Jurassic 6 times higher and Cretaceous 5 times higher. Perhaps you are starting to appreciate why there was never going to be any predictive success when they claim a rise by less than 1x factor, a minority percentage since industrialization, wil produce a cataclysm? We cannot even believe that its produced a 1° rise since then by that reasoning.
Please see my previous comparison of the earth with Venus & Mars which both have around 96% percent carbon dioxide atmosphere by composition, yet very different surface temperatures. The percentage composition of the atmospheres of those two planets is compared with other factors such as atmospheric pressure and proximity to its star.
CMIP5
CMIP5 models had a more or less 5% predictive success rate, meaning climate science was second behind ^CDM cosmology in the race for the bottom, before CMIP6 allowed the discipline to take a decisive lead.
 |
Figure 2
I contest the 1.64% figure, should be 1.47% |
Failure in the past to predict atmospheric temperature changes was played down and ocean surface temperature has always been cited as a better indicator of our planets surface temperature. Well now we can say for sure that in this arena they have failed as well. Depending on which models & simulations are run, its a bit of a lucky dip. Typically atmospheric predictions are worse off when compared to observation, eg:
 |
| Not so hot on the predictions. |
The unavoidable fact is that one out of sixty eight is 1.47%
°°°°°••••∆••••°°°°°°
https://www.netzerowatch.com/pacific-problems-for-climate-models/?mc_cid=d372f6658f&mc_eid=1986a05a04
PART 2:COSMOLOGY
Cosmology has only 1 model that is sanctioned by the establishment, the LAMBDA-CDM (^CDM or "cold dark matter") model more commonly referred to as the standard cosmological model. The establishment which has a monopoly on public funding, grant & research and the education curriculum does not teach or allow competing models (such as Plasma Cosmology which accounts for 100% of the observable universe) into universities or to bid for non private funding of R&D projects. Moreover, this model rejects such things as the electromagnetic influence of pervasive cosmic magnetic fields on the cosmic web, formation of galaxies and orbital mechanics of solar systems.
It also asserts that the universe is expanding from a big bang 13.8 billion years ago. When applied to the supposed rate of expansion used by the model from the big bang the shortcoming variable in theory vs observation is given the name "Dark Energy". When applied to the rotational curve of galaxies under the called for criteria of the ^CDM model, that gravity drives galactic rotation, the variable given for shortcoming in theory vs observation is called "Dark Matter".
The rate of success reconciling The standard model with observable matter and supposed measured dynamics/movement of that matter is low (the concept "space" proposed as being a material fabric or manifold both causing gravity, somehow, using pure geometry and expanding due to unseen factors). It's reconciliation of prediction vs observation is 4.6%...
In other words
It is a true statement to say: Only 4.6% of the universe is accounted for based on predictions of the standard model being reconciled with observation.
Below: Public understanding /Google trajectory.
Below: Explanation of failure of the big bang model in terms of predicting light elements, rate of expansion etc
The big bang can be seen in the broader context of the LAMBDA-CDM CONCORDANCE model, the standard cosmological model, where LAMBDA (^) can be viewed as dark energy basically by the models interpretation, and (CDM) as dark matter.
This model relies heavily on General Relativity which is falsely upheld as being well tested, but its tested mathematically within the failed model so we must conclude that since there is no engineering or industry based on GR and the only instance of it widely regarded, the GPS system, being a widespread myth (categorical fact!). This means GR must in turn be viewed as a failure since its only evidenced theoretically, not experimentally, as a tool of a failed model.
So why else is the science behind climate change getting it so wrong?
Recent news & scientific papers which may offer some insight into such a spectacular failure of predictive success.
The links to these papers, in addition to being on my screenshots, along with dozens more can be found by clicking the drop down menu at the top right hand side of your screen and scrolling down to "Source Material & Citations". Two options are given (which are Cosmology/ Astrophysics as well as Climate Change). Both sections happen to be relevant to this post.
*Citation: Stallinga, P. (2020)
Comprehensive Analytical Study of the Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere.
Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 10, 40-80
Now science is in many ways doing very well. Science which has engineering, technology and industry based on its principles had extremely high standards of precision and accuracy. This includes some areas of medicine but not others as with pharmaceceutical and vaccine R&D but this is explained by profit incentive, not by scientific failure.
What we find is that In cases where predictive success, models, mathematical projections and theoretical physics is based on the oxymoron "Strong theoretical evidence" then science doesn't apply. Only genuine evidence is the basis can standards and accuracy can be looked at. Science is either evidence based, or theoretical, it can't be both! One can be be turned into the other once evidenced by factors that are DIRECTLY MEASURABLE.
A good case in point is NASA. NASA is publicly funded so should fall into all the traps those disciplines I just mentioned didn't right? Well NASA does fall into the trap, its missions ride the coat tails in many ways of brilliant engineering, not cosmology. This is thanks not just to the contractors but to the brilliant Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL). In addition NASA was obliged to throw its hat into the climate issue, and the NASA GISS - Climate ( NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies / Climate Div.) was formed. So NASA has fingers in both pots, and has pocket's of brilliance and a big fat political, bureaucratic underbelly.
Ironically, even NASA of old condemns NASA today. NASA astronaughts from the days when NASA was closer to the top of its game and far better funded, took aim at the increasing politicisation of the organisation. They blasted the agency for its obligation to capitulate to the unscientific stance on the side claiming man made CO2 is producing a catastrophic effect on climate.
 |
| Dr James Hansen of NASA followed up his testimonies before Congress where he predicted how much of the western seaboard would be underwater by 2000 with another clanger in 2008. This time Hansen boldly predicted that by 2018 the arctic would be ice free. Well, that's the kind of predictive success that inspired this article... |
Elsewhere, notoriously, there are problems with reproducibility. Its a serious problem. There are also problems and widespread discontent with the peer review process, political problems of conformity, lack of tolerance to dissent or skepticism, problems of intitutionalized establishment and tenure, massive pressure to access funding and so forth. It's clear that the blame cannot be laid purely on the shoulders of scientists who have found these pressures thrust onto their shoulders. They find themselves trapped in the system. Read about it here in my article The Crises Of Science.
The problem is so bad that from time to time mainstream consensus science has been seriously looking making a case for doing away with one of the core principles of the scientific method, the principle of Falsifiability. In order to falsify the hypothesis "All swans are white" it doesn't matter how many white swans you find, you only need find one black swan. It's self evident why its the most important principle of the scientific method. But all kinds of creative reasons by bureaucrats parading as scientists, looking to cut corners, are coming up with, such as:
Or worse, some have altogether abandoned the scientific method entirely, so far are they up their own asses they couldn't be bothered and don't know anything about the history of why its there. Unsurprisingly this comes from areas which produce no useful results or success, such as String Theory, as Michio Kaku confesses below:
The final problem is one of data fraud due to political pressure. The historical data is being massaged to fit the narrative and current measurements are tweaked to hide the fact that they have nothing. I write about it here with evidence.
 |
| Click HERE for more on data fudging |
Click HERE for the homepage of this site.
