Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[Dan From Smithville]

If you don't know what anthropogenic means then there are plenty of online dictionaries that can help you out with that.

You don't have to work so hard to convince me that it wouldn't be useful to discuss these things with you. I'm convinced.

 

[Ebionite]

You don't have to work so hard to convince me that it wouldn't be useful to discuss these things with you. I'm convinced.

You didn't bring up anything relevant to what was being discussed, which was the bias of the IPCC that arises from its systemic humanism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You didn't bring up anything relevant to what was being discussed, which was the bias of the IPCC that arises from its systemic humanism.

Whatever you say.

 

[Ebionite]

Whatever you say.

And you thought that I should go out of my way to describe the details of a strawman that someone threw my way?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you thought that I should go out of my way to describe the details of a strawman that someone threw my way?

No. I made a few exploratory posts with questions. You failed to deliver and now are making a show of it. Like I said, you don't have to work so hard. You have a wonderful rest of your evening.

 

[Copernicus]

It leads to bias in interpretation because that's the only place that it can go, logically.

If "bias in interpretation" has an insignificant effect on outcomes, then it doesn't matter. Those who try to bamboozle other scientists with results that can't be replicated end up being exposed. That's how science works. It doesn't just depend on the work of a single scientist. It depends on the reliability of a theory to predict correct results repeatedly. That's why we still don't have room temperature superconductors. Scientists that claim to have discovered them have produce results that can't be corroborated by other scientists.

 

[wellwisher]

And how do you propose that those changes would happen? I know how they can change, but that won't help you.

The materials of the inner earth from the equator to core is less dense than the inner earth from poles to core. This I a science fact. My theory is this is due to solar heating being a maximum at the equator. The sun evaporates the most water at the equator, which separates the hydrogen bonds of water, making the atmosphere more positively charged at the equator. This sets a potential with the elections within the iron core that is maximized at the equator. Water works it way to the core, to lower the potential, making the equator materials less dense all the way to the core.

The positive charge of atmospheric water is due to the oxygen of water being much more electronegative than hydrogen, able to accommodate the octet of water electrons, through magnetic addition via the P-orbitals.. This magnetic addition of elections in 3-D, compensates for the electrostatic repulsion of the octet of electrons, so the oxygen is less negative; EM force of the oxygen favors magnetic attraction over electrostatic repulsion. The 3-D p-orbital addition of oxygen below, uses the right hand in rule in x,y, and z; 3-D, with the magnetic force addition in 3-D able to lower the electrostatic repulsion of -2, to give a weaker negative charge relative the positive charge of the hydrogen. Hydrogen does not benefit as much from magnetic addition so it is more electro-positive.

The positive charge of the hydrogen in the atmospheric water set a potential with the electrons of the iron core. The net affect is water migrates to the core to rust the iron core, which gives off electrons. The oceans are slightly negative; alkaline. The electrons of iron, flow toward the surface, as a water flux flows toward the core making the minerals fluffier at the equator. This potential has been amplified by the oxygen atmosphere created by life; also solar. The O2 also needs electrons.

I used to be a materials specialists and did research growing gem quality crystals. One technique I liked was based on hydrothermal or supercritical water. As you increase the temperature and pressure of water, water become an increasingly aggressive solvent for the earth's minerals. Water at the critical point and beyond is very similar to water vapor with all the hydrogen bonds broken, with super critical water is as dense as a liquid; dense fluid. The increasing solubility of minerals as a function of increasing pressure and temperature satisfies the needs of the 2nd law. Water can increases mineral entropy by following the thermal and pressure gradient to the core. This make minerals more spongy and less dense, radially, where the earth has a solar maximum; equator.

Research done by scientists at Los Alamos National Lab, have shown that water at even higher temperature and pressure than the supercritical point of water, undergoes further phase changes; super-ionic, ionic and metallic water, with these phases changes appearing to equate to the conditions of the layering of the inner earth; mantle, outer core and core. It seems very likely water plays an important role in the inner earth, having a dynamic affect, driven by the sun and the 2nd law. The rusting of the core is a source of inner earth energy that then works to the surface, causing various inner earth and surface changes.

Science has found an ocean of water below the crust in the form of a mineral sponge affect. With the crust both sinking and lifting at plate boundaries, the water phase balance can shift.

CO2 is an important part of climate, but water has its finger in every pie, due to the many hats of water from the atmosphere; gas, to the core; metal. The oxygen balance is also important from ozone to water to core iron oxide. Oxygen is also part of CO2.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The materials of the inner earth from the equator to core is less dense than the inner earth from poles to core. This I a science fact. My theory is this is due to solar heating being a maximum at the equator. The sun evaporates the most water at the equator, which separates the hydrogen bonds of water, making the atmosphere more positively charged at the equator. This sets a potential with the elections within the iron core that is maximized at the equator. Water works it way to the core, to lower the potential, making the equator materials less dense all the way to the core.

The positive charge of atmospheric water is due to the oxygen of water being much more electronegative than hydrogen, able to accommodate the octet of water electrons, through magnetic addition via the P-orbitals.. This magnetic addition of elections in 3-D, compensates for the electrostatic repulsion of the octet of electrons, so the oxygen is less negative; EM force of the oxygen favors magnetic attraction over electrostatic repulsion. The 3-D p-orbital addition of oxygen below, uses the right hand in rule in x,y, and z; 3-D, with the magnetic force addition in 3-D able to lower the electrostatic repulsion of -2, to give a weaker negative charge relative the positive charge of the hydrogen. Hydrogen does not benefit as much from magnetic addition so it is more electro-positive.

The positive charge of the hydrogen in the atmospheric water set a potential with the electrons of the iron core. The net affect is water migrates to the core to rust the iron core, which gives off electrons. The oceans are slightly negative; alkaline. The electrons of iron, flow toward the surface, as a water flux flows toward the core making the minerals fluffier at the equator. This potential has been amplified by the oxygen atmosphere created by life; also solar. The O2 also needs electrons.

I used to be a materials specialists and did research growing gem quality crystals. One technique I liked was based on hydrothermal or supercritical water. As you increase the temperature and pressure of water, water become an increasingly aggressive solvent for the earth's minerals. Water at the critical point and beyond is very similar to water vapor with all the hydrogen bonds broken, with super critical water is as dense as a liquid; dense fluid. The increasing solubility of minerals as a function of increasing pressure and temperature satisfies the needs of the 2nd law. Water can increases mineral entropy by following the thermal and pressure gradient to the core. This make minerals more spongy and less dense, radially, where the earth has a solar maximum; equator.

Research done by scientists at Los Alamos National Lab, have shown that water at even higher temperature and pressure than the supercritical point of water, undergoes further phase changes; super-ionic, ionic and metallic water, with these phases changes appearing to equate to the conditions of the layering of the inner earth; mantle, outer core and core. It seems very likely water plays an important role in the inner earth, having a dynamic affect, driven by the sun and the 2nd law. The rusting of the core is a source of inner earth energy that then works to the surface, causing various inner earth and surface changes.

Science has found an ocean of water below the crust in the form of a mineral sponge affect. With the crust both sinking and lifting at plate boundaries, the water phase balance can shift.

CO2 is an important part of climate, but water has its finger in every pie, due to the many hats of water from the atmosphere; gas, to the core; metal. The oxygen balance is also important from ozone to water to core iron oxide. Oxygen is also part of CO2.

Why didn't you just say that you could not answer the question?

 

[Ebionite]

No. I made a few exploratory posts with questions. You failed to deliver and now are making a show of it. Like I said, you don't have to work so hard. You have a wonderful rest of your evening.

I didn't buy into your timewasting exercise, in other words.

 

[Ebionite]

If "bias in interpretation" has an insignificant effect on outcomes, then it doesn't matter.

The bias is significant because IPCC policy is well known and those who oppose it are often labelled "deniers".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't buy into your timewasting exercise, in other words.

No. I didn't buy into yours.

 

[Copernicus]

The bias is significant because IPCC policy is well known and those who oppose it are often labelled "deniers".

Well, that's because IPCC policy is well known to be well known, and the description of those who oppose it is quite accurate. You can't oppose something without denying something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that's because IPCC policy is well known to be well known, and the description of those who oppose it is quite accurate. You can't oppose something without denying something.

And in this case it is science.

What is amazing is that people that at least tried could begin to understand the greenhouse effect, but I do not even see them doing that.

 

[wellwisher]

And in this case it is science.

What is amazing is that people that at least tried could begin to understand the greenhouse effect, but I do not even see them doing that.

I read an article the other day about a Climate Scientist who wanted to publish in a prestigious science Journal, which he did. However, he said to improve his odds, he limit his data and analysis and did not attempt to expand beyond the easiest to publish criteria. His work about forest fires adding CO2 but he felt it strategically better to avoid talking about land management, since this could rub some the wrong way, all else equal.

He demonstrated how his good science data could be presented in two scientific ways, with the more limited way that fitted the collective narrative, easier to publish. It not science or anti-science, but which science is acceptable. There is a disingenuous attempt to paint anything, not with the narrative goal, to be called science denial. Publications can be stacked and called a consensus. Science can go both ways and do good science, but not if money and publications direct the flow.

If you recall COVID did the same thing. Things that are now seen as true for COVID, were called denial at one time. The same swamp bonehead were in charge of both. COVID was violation of free speech for political gain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read an article the other day about a Climate Scientist who wanted to publish in a prestigious science Journal, which he did. However, he said to improve his odds, he limit his data and analysis and did not attempt to expand beyond the easiest to publish criteria. His work about forest fires adding CO2 but he felt it strategically better to avoid talking about land management, since this could rub some the wrong way, all else equal.

He demonstrated how his good science data could be presented in two scientific ways, with the more limited way that fitted the collective narrative, easier to publish. It not science or anti-science, but which science is acceptable. There is a disingenuous attempt to paint anything, not with the narrative goal, to be called science denial. Publications can be stacked and called a consensus. Science can go both ways and do good science, but not if money and publications direct the flow.

If you recall COVID did the same thing. Things that are now seen as true for COVID, were called denial at one time. The same swamp bonehead were in charge of both. COVID was violation of free speech for political gain.

Anecdotes are not evidence. And all that was done with covid is that people making false claims were limited a bit on all sorts of sites.

You keep telling us that you never had any significant scientific education. You do not understand how to properly support any of your claims.

And you do not seem to understand that the only "swamp" that has existed lately consists of Republicans and science deniers.

So how do we fix this? It seems that you do not want to learn any science at all because that would refute your beliefs.

 

[Copernicus]

I read an article the other day about a Climate Scientist who wanted to publish in a prestigious science Journal, which he did. However, he said to improve his odds, he limit his data and analysis and did not attempt to expand beyond the easiest to publish criteria. His work about forest fires adding CO2 but he felt it strategically better to avoid talking about land management, since this could rub some the wrong way, all else equal.

He demonstrated how his good science data could be presented in two scientific ways, with the more limited way that fitted the collective narrative, easier to publish. It not science or anti-science, but which science is acceptable. There is a disingenuous attempt to paint anything, not with the narrative goal, to be called science denial. Publications can be stacked and called a consensus. Science can go both ways and do good science, but not if money and publications direct the flow.

If you recall COVID did the same thing. Things that are now seen as true for COVID, were called denial at one time. The same swamp bonehead were in charge of both. COVID was violation of free speech for political gain.

There can be many reasons why scholars and scientists change the material they submit for publication. Very often it is because they feel that their research and data will be rejected because of editorial and reviewer biases, but bear in mind that they may also feel they have insufficient data and reasoning to convince editors and reviewers of the merits of their work. It is easy to feel that editorial bias is unfair and ignore the possibility that the editorial bias serves a good purpose--to make them mount their case to the point where it is felt to be acceptable even to skeptics. That is sometimes hard to do, but that is part of how the system is supposed to work. Peer review is there to filter out weak science. Peer review skepticism plays a big role in advancing scientific progress. Editors do not want to publish work that will later have to be retracted, but that does happen.

 

[wellwisher]

Anecdotes are not evidence. And all that was done with covid is that people making false claims were limited a bit on all sorts of sites.

You keep telling us that you never had any significant scientific education. You do not understand how to properly support any of your claims.

And you do not seem to understand that the only "swamp" that has existed lately consists of Republicans and science deniers.

So how do we fix this? It seems that you do not want to learn any science at all because that would refute your beliefs.

I never said I had no science education. I hint, but do not like to brag. I was a Development Chemical Engineer with a Graduate Degree. Chemical Engineering is the most brood based science education you can get. Now retired.

As a Development Engineer I published papers, due to using DOE resources, with automatic publication, part of the quarterly and annual deal. I have won awards and have a US Patent and presented papers at DOE contractor conferences.

I have worked for MIT, General Electric, Union Carbide and Martin Maritta. Most of my development work was at the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge. The plant was among three plants built in Oak Ridge, during and after the Manhattan Project. These were expanded during the development of the special materials and physics packages needed for the H-bomb. My job required a US Government Q-clearance; Q on James Bond.

The unique ideas, that I express in this site, are development projects I do as a hobby. I am used to not just knowing what science knows, but also what it does not know or cannot explain. Many theories, taught in schools, have falsifying data, but they are taught anyway, until the time a new clean change is possible. Change is slower than falsifying data gathering. The science bureaucracy is like a large ship, that turns very slowly, since so many people are involved.

For example, data like the earth's core rotating faster than the surface, is very important to any integrated earth theory. I cannot see how you can ignore a ball of iron the size of the moon, dragging the surface. This may not be taught in geology or climate science, but will be part of the future. If a theory cannot take it into account the newest data, obsolesces is inevitable, so I move on and start working on a solution. This what a development engineer does. People may not understand why I try to reinvent the wheel. It has a flat.

You should research state of the art data that current theory cannot explain. It is mind opening. For example, data shows that galaxies formed very early in the universe, which the BB standard model cannot explain. However, neither can the other alternatives, so the status quo remains until there is one this is well developed. My connected space-time and separated space and time theory will be the future of physics since it can gets rid of uncertainty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said I had no science education. I hint, but do not like to brag. I was a Development Chemical Engineer with a Graduate Degree. Chemical Engineering is the most brood based science education you can get. Now retired.

As a Development Engineer I published papers, due to using DOE resources, with automatic publication, part of the quarterly and annual deal. I have won awards and have a US Patent and presented papers at DOE contractor conferences.

I have worked for MIT, General Electric, Union Carbide and Martin Maritta. Most of my development work was at the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge. The plant was among three plants built in Oak Ridge, during and after the Manhattan Project. These were expanded during the development of the special materials and physics packages needed for the H-bomb. My job required a US Government Q-clearance; Q on James Bond.

The unique ideas, that I express in this site, are development projects I do as a hobby. I am used to not just knowing what science knows, but also what it does not know or cannot explain. Many theories, taught in schools, have falsifying data, but they are taught anyway, until the time a new clean change is possible. Change is slower than falsifying data gathering. The science bureaucracy is like a large ship, that turns very slowly, since so many people are involved.

For example, data like the earth's core rotating faster than the surface, is very important to any integrated earth theory. I cannot see how you can ignore a ball of iron the size of the moon, dragging the surface. This may not be taught in geology or climate science, but will be part of the future. If a theory cannot take it into account the newest data, obsolesces is inevitable, so I move on and start working on a solution. This what a development engineer does. People may not understand why I try to reinvent the wheel. It has a flat.

You should research state of the art data that current theory cannot explain. It is mind opening. For example, data shows that galaxies formed very early in the universe, which the BB standard model cannot explain. However, neither can the other alternatives, so the status quo remains until there is one this is well developed. My connected space-time and separated space and time theory will be the future of physics since it can gets rid of uncertainty.

Nice claims. Your posts argue against those claims.

 

[Copernicus]

Being a scientist does not make one competent in all fields of science, and being an engineer does not make one a competent scientist. Engineers apply scientific principles to achieve practical results, and they tend to be conservative by nature. They don't normally conduct experiments to discover what will happen after they do something innovative. Engineers conduct tests to know what will happen before they build something of practical use. If there were no difference between science and engineering, there would be no need to establish them as different schools and departments in universities. Both subjects could be taught by the same faculty.

 

[metis]

It is a straw man because GW is not the same as catastrophic AGW

Well, the reality is that we well know through the extensive research that human interactions with the environment can and have had significant effects. I get my info from peer-reviewed science but have no idea where yours is being pulled out of.

As some others have noted, having a serious discussion with you is largely fruitless, thus I have no intention of wasting more time with you.