“Against Global Warming”

(Guest post by Robert P. Cheshire AIAS.US)

An essay respectful of the growing resurgence of proper scientific procedure in light of existing dogmatic, propagandist or purely erroneous data.

Einstein: Greenhouse Effect is a Fraud

Einstein: Greenhouse Effect is a Fraud

The “Greenhouse Effect”, a phrase often bandied about over the last two to three decades or so, began life as an erroneous analogy for certain atmospheric activity. The phrase went on to be at the core of a new model, consequently and erroneously predicting data for Man-made, Global Warming; Whereby, we lesser mortals are supposed to have been leaving “fatal” footprints of carbon emission and hastening the Apocalypse or Armageddon. This alarmism has spawned a host of trade businesses and government directives through those decades, alongside human feelings of imminent doom and despair. I too [as one of many millions or even billions] was taken in. The atmosphere behaves in no way like a “Greenhouse” model.

In fact, we were understandably taken in. Mainstream scientific authority is supposed to tell us how things are to the best of modern thought and knowledge ( I feel a wistful sentimentality coming on…). The plain truth is that they haven’t got a clue for a variety of reasons and have been misdirected by both their own sense of self importance and an almost religious adhesion to dogma or received opinion. There are other reasons involving the securing or redistribution of funding that shares centre stage in the reasoning as to why such a large body of scientists have either conspired, been duped or merely been unscholarly enough to accept error and then elevate that error to current mathematic model status. The rot set in as far back as 1906 if not before.

When Einstein published his theory of Special Relativity it was suitably met with great accord (considering the comparatively small number of capable physicists as measured pro rata today). Einstein appeared to be describing a logic in the universe such as had not been quantified before in such a seemingly elegant fashion. It was not long before he was awarded lasting genius status in both the scientific and the general, public eye.

In 1915 he published his theory of General Relativity, an elaboration of the former “SR” theory and possibly an attempt to apply the Relativity theory to the whole of Physics and related auspices – the holy grail known as the T.O.E. – The “Theory of Everything”. The penning of such reasoning gave Einstein even greater status. Many would come to regard him as spiritually blessed to the point of deification! Einstein became God of Science and – (and this is where the known rot crept in) – infallible.

A fatal assessment given that Einstein’s Field Equation was shy of two forces known today; the Strong and the Weak Nuclear Forces. He could only try to unify the known Gravitation with known Electromagnetism and with hindsight, was short of the full scientific deck by a huge margin. So much so that E=MC squared could be better employed as Esub0 =MC squared – a completely different ball game.

From the beginning, Einstein had met with the odd refutation of his theories since and even before publication but either he or some colleagues did not see evidence enough to review or revise. And so, despite the eminence of any would-be refuter, General Relativity became the benchmark “manual” for much of modern mainstream scientific research – particularly theoretical physics and cosmology.

In 1927, Werner Heisenberg had been proffering his principles of Uncertainty or Indeterminacy which, seemingly precluded a full understanding of Atomic quantification and highlighted “probability” as our only eventual recourse in much atomic level endeavour.

Einstein did not agree and he “told them so” [notable followers of these new principles] and was thanked for his monumental contribution of Relativity, but now, effectively, he’d “lost it” and couldn’t keep up with the pace of “modern thinking”!

Heisenberg was a notable scholar, engineer and scientist with a Nobel award. His later field had been the A Bomb for Germany until around the end of WW2 when he was held by Britain for a while before working in the USA. It seemed at first, that his earlier theories of Uncertainty and such would put something of a block on scientific, thought development since our hands could be tied by calculations in Probability. In fact, quite the opposite happened! Either because of, or coincidental with Heisenberg’s concepts, a plethora of ideas had come forward that by 1930 were bordering, if not part of the plainly fantastic. Not of this world. Interestingly, Chemical physicists had carried on regardless of the Heisenberg interruption and were busily measuring the “immeasurable” and advancing chemistry as if Heisenberg had not spoken at all. Chemical physicists could not however, sway a mindset determined upon indetermination.

Time was now subject to change. It could contract or equally, expand. Measuring sticks became flexible. It seemed as if Heisenberg had given license to an unrestrained imagination that was to go walkabout even to the present day. The mathematical models we have today are supposed to reflect a framework of reality. They do not. It has gotten so bad that in some cases in our modern age, neither the reality nor the frameworks can even be detected by sight or radiation…or any other measuring system…ever! Yet we’re, most of us, convinced of the existence of Black Holes for example. Dark Matter or Dark Energy are more mathematical models of no traceable evidence whatsoever! Big Bang Theory is based on such abstract mathematics that even Dr. Roger Penrose of Messrs Penrose and Hawking, has modified his view to the effect that he now thinks that Big Bang, point singularity [nothingness then everythingness] was actually one of a series of such events and not the “one off” event that Prof. Hawking prefers. It just gets worse. Less and less palpable or tangible evidence = more and more funding. It is bizarre when you stop to think on it. Further…it is madness. A hundred years of suspect, mathematical modelling and no product from almost all of it.

Many and much of the mathematical modelling of this type is based on Einstein’s General Relativity along with Heisenberg’s – probably unintended – encouragement to guess. An encouragement to guess can be a good thing. Imagination is an essential part of logic and problem solving. However, just as a bicycle will carry you forward faster than your legs, you will inevitably, need brakes! Imagination is a tool not a resting place! You have to balance the imagination with scientific back-up such as plain, observable logic or understandable, cohesive mathematics.

Almost all of the notable refuters of all or parts of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity had made valid points that should not have been ignored. Contemporary refutations of today are also by eminent scholars of science. Incredibly, many of these original thinkers (now in secretive thousands as well as overt hundreds) have been labelled as “crackpots” by mainstream “authority” and in places such as the online, Wikipedia.

It is still a cardinal sin – worthy of “excommunication” to thoroughly check the findings of others and find error – in almost every quarter of this so-called mainstream scientific authority. In other words, adjustable parameters have been ostensibly inserted into the very definition of the word, “science”. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, the word science is taken from the Latin, scientia and scire, to know. It specifically refers to bodies of knowledge gained by observation and experiment. It has never meant, “to guess” or to disregard the “observation” part of its definition as would appear today. This astoundingly, deems most of our “frontline” mathematical models – of the cosmos particularly – unscientific. Without confirming or observable data, it is effectively, another shot in the dark.

I have been and will be attacked for my requests to revise EGR to the point of throwing it out completely. What an arrogant man I must be. Who do I think I am to doubt the work of Saint Albert etc etc. Well St. Albert was a great and innovative, instinctive thinker and the very birth of his theories should have advanced us no end if we’d applied proper scientific appraisal to the fundaments of this work. Einstein gave us the key to another level and we didn’t take up his gauntlet and move forward with a firm theoretical foundation because we took it for granted that Einstein doesn’t make mistakes. The mistakes would not have precluded the higher level but in fact enable us to correct and alter an initial course set by Einstein himself. No authority or governing body checked the theory sufficiently but went on to pillory all doubters of it. Mindless authoritarian dogma. So we got stuck where Einstein left us – more than a century behind in scientific development. There will be no memorabilia from this lost time either, since you cannot photograph something that isn’t there. We could not photograph the Emperors new clothes as we might well be paradoxically, charged with possession of obscenity as well as lunacy.

The concept of Global Warming, man made or otherwise, had also spawned a host of “pseudo-experts in the field” who are now coming painfully unstuck as true diligence and scientific analysis takes hold once more. Proper men and women of proper science are re-analysing existing, long held beliefs and finding them appallingly lacking and without any scientific justification. Misinterpretation, misrepresentation, laziness and even corruption have abounded by the result of a “few good men doing nothing” in the past. They should have done something. Respects are very much due to all those who tried hard but died, were declared insane, incapable or “too unorthodox” to inspire proper, concerted, scientific investigation. Total irony. Total dogma. Totalitarian Tyranny.

They should have done something because “a few good men” are once again on the rise. These men and women of more diligent science had smelled a rat at some point, somewhere during recent decades and honoured their profession by rooting it out. What a furore this has caused amongst the hitherto smug-minded of this dying “standard model” era. “A few more good men and women” are identifying huge cracks and fatal flaws in currently held doctrines, dictats and theories. There is a plague of rats. The mainstream Owl and the Pussycat had been repeatedly and still are, putting to sea in a beautiful, pea green colander and fly the now ragged and rotting bunting of a victorious but fictitious fleet. A fantasy.

Too many of conscience are finally disseminating the myths of Theoretical Physics and Global Warming particularly, and finding that the sickness goes right through sciences to taint even the most genuine minded of scholars. I am informed that there have been times in recent history, where to secure funding for a potentially unrelated thesis, it has been considered wiser if not a direction to add some convoluted connection to effects of Global Warming. Only readers with such first hand experience could verify that. I cannot comment much beyond receipt of such information. Equally, I cannot readily see the case for, “It does not or would not happen”. We also see cases where challenges to the “standard model” will mean certain examination failure and subsequent “catch 22″ scenarios that threaten a students or graduates prospects if error in the mainstream view is suspected or worse, voiced. Further investigation and research must needs be done covertly.

I don’t think that the growing mistrust of mainstream science and academia in the eyes of a “lay” public is wholly unjustified or unqualified either. They, us, now more than ever. witness the failure of practically all servants of The People and many of the institutions that simply, ought to have known better. Be those institutions of scientific, social health, political, financial or media bases, they’ve all been practicing obscurantism – concealing the true facts of a thing. Often in favour of greater personal or individual gain for a select leadership or the protection of same. What comes as depressingly routine is the selling of principle for tenure and the tenuring of chairs of no sound principle.

Good Americans will know that a few of that newly settled nation, a few founding fathers, scorned the abuse of the original natives of the land but that for their pains, would be labelled, “Indian Lovers” and publicly derided by a ruling echelon with a “pressing need” of such lands. Again, hindsight makes us suitably uncomfortable about this. In the same way, albeit not as socially tragic, those who challenge mainstream policy or thinking and especially in the field of Particle Physics where Einsteinian theory underpins a lot of the research concepts, are labelled “Einstein (or EGR) haters” and have been mocked and ridiculed without any cohesive data to rebut the more than adequate,mathematical refutations. Purely personal abuse and/or attempted suppression by declarations of congenital lunacy or other such related, invented impediment. That is, all dissenters are as the “savages” and the “Indian Lovers” and therefore, completely barking.

These immoveable agenda lead us up blind creeks to wallow in the predictable and gentle tidal flow of non production – back and forth, back and forth. The ferryman is happy. He is paid to hold his water only. To keep the boat static. We are under way but not making way. Just the constant tides and sea life pass us in and out but our ground is still. The ferrymen are overqualified and should be deep sea, expeditionary Masters but creeklife is calm and can be very comfortable. Losing the paddles doesn’t seem much of a problem either ..not if you go straight to anchor or permanent moorings.

We the public are at fault too. Laziness at the ballot box. Unconditional acceptance of received opinion. Anthropomorphic digestion of unsubstantiated data that only a little consideration would beg challenge…”Decades?? Billions and billions of Dollars, Pounds and Euro??? Higgs Bosons?? the “GOD Particle”??? Where are they??? What has our Particle science investment brought us?? Nada. Another question that should have been asked more than a decade ago: “Is there something radically wrong with the theory??”.

Those questions were asked by a few heroes of our time. Made heroes by the hardships they have had to endure for the sake of integrity in their chosen fields. Those questions are continually being asked by those who have witnessed the rigid dogma of a closed shop. Still no answers. Only abuse to the questioner. Many of us (the public at large) don’t want to know because it stretches the mind to envisage these dilemmas and that can smart when your constitutional diet is headed by the “Entertainment Factor” of TV. So we all share blame in that respect. The unquestioning acceptance of any authority is a weakness we can do without and increasingly, cannot afford – let alone an intractable scientific authority. Especially when what we can see is as self serving or has vested interest in an agenda that may even wipe us all out. If we continue to fight over energy – oil and gas, then we’ll surely die all the sooner. We need a sensible investigation into all alternatives no matter how outlandish they may first appear. If oil reserves are truly low, we should be studying their potential replacements – in all forms. Many of our great achievements have come from challenges to some kind of mainstream authority. The world of “political science” as the unabridged science of politics, is fraught with irony, paradox and obscurantism. Paradigm shifts are only feasible when this is exposed. A real-life scenario may feature a teacher say, or a political figure or an exponent of a particular belief. A Thomas Edison figure with DC power plans. How they deal with paradigm shifts, with the Nikola Teslas of this world with their AC and superior systems; That is an interesting question and negatively revealing.

The difference between the “few good men” who did nothing then and the “few good men” of today is that the former were only good until they elected to do nothing. The latter are doing something that affirms and will cement that goodness and will help restore our faith in ourselves by searching diligently for a better way without dishonest lip-service and false, party-line chanting. The internet has so far ensured that scientists can talk to each other across the world to formulate and cement solid ideas by peer review and without unthinking censorship. We see a classic situation whereby, once a stifling authority is removed, something far from anarchic chaos ensues but innovation and clear thinking and, as history shows, progress. This has cost a select few a great deal and we owe them much for it. Many have had their career livelihoods removed from underneath them but have soldiered on against an almost overwhelming aggression and abuse from yet another, academic, mainstream mindset or authority who ought, but appear not, to know better. It has been criminal treatment of some of our best scientific minds and makes this author ashamed of many of our culpable institutions.

I am a proud Fellow of The Institute for Advanced Study – aias.us where a few good men – almost all of our members and Fellows have distinctions in their field or are past laureates of other connected institutions – have forged ahead of mainstream with the mathematics and science – the proof of the errors of EGR and much more. A new, contemporary Unified Field Theory has been emplaced to replace the obsolete parts of Einstein’s propositions and gained accord from progressive scientists who use solid mathematical bases of tried and tested spacetime geometry and algebra in models of observable and more accurate definition. Einstein’s errors have been addressed and respect for his being in general has never been purposely compromised. Some of his platforms will not hold and have had to have been rebuilt. It is my view that Einstein has been made greater by this “reset” to humanity and my own sense of respect for his timely being on this planet has been strengthened. He was a human man and therefore the greater for it. Had he been a God, his work would have been easy. It wasn’t.

The revised, rebuilt and extended theory is called the Einstein – Cartan – Evans Theory that is, ECE Theory- so named after its three main contributors.

Einstein set the ball rolling with renewed vigour by a variety of cutting edge concepts that would eventually tease out a reality that now, we can all begin to agree on. Honours to his brilliance must be and are reflected in the theory’s title.

Elie Cartan was another brilliant mind and French mathematician who had developed the known geometry of physics into far greater accuracy, particularly by engaging with the torsion of spacetime T – a major parameter hitherto neglected. Part of his legacy is Cartan Geometry – enough on its own to overturn much dogmatic waywardness and a key element in the smooth functionality of ECE Theory.

Dr. Myron Wyn Evans is the architect of the sum of the parts and chief author of both the completed and continuous flow of computer-algebra tested data resulting from the diligent mathematics and geometry at the heart of his brainchild and any peer input.

Dr Evans is a quiet man in real life. He is the youngest D.Sc. (Doctor in Scientia) of modern times having attained that honour at 27 yrs. a record of more than half a if not nearly a century since a comparative predecessor. More latterly and under the advice of Parliament, The Queen awarded Dr. Evans a Civil List Pension and a subsequent personal and public title of Armiger / Gentleman for his services to science. Between those two events and before and after are a host of outstanding records and awards. You don’t get accolade such as Dr. Evans has achieved if you’re a crackpot! Dr. Evans maintains an ongoing personal diary in which he puts his general views on many topics and issues. He is the Director of the AIAS and its site displays all the Unified Field Theory [UFT] Papers – more than 220 papers to date in just that series – and works of other contributory and prolific authors such as Drs. Horst Eckhardt and Doug Lindstrom together with a host of eminent scholars and thinkers such as Stephen Crothers and others too numerous here to mention. The site caters for the higher level mathematician in the UFT papers yet speaks to the layman in plain English or the less complex terms of the essays and lecture materials section. There are many works therein.

The science of Physics has entered a paradigm shift. There is a growing resentment of dogma and the promotion of hackneyed and unproductive data or statistics that would stifle the very nature and essence of what a true scientist is – a seeker of knowledge. By default he or she should be a seeker of truth. Can we let it be that we let our publicly financed institutions or the ties to private gain without product, teach us to lie?

By relentless endeavour and without pay, Myron Evans with ECE Theory and the AIAS group, together with other ECE Related sites have been preventing that and will continue to do so for both the love of learning and the benefits that honest scholarship may provide for all and not just the few. There are other sites and institutes that have so dedicated their studies and the AIAS group welcomes all affiliates who can merely prove any theoretical posit with clear, recognisable and appropriate mathematics. Insistence on an EGR based model will not get you published here. Having already been shredded by many notable scholars down the last century, such insistence shows that ECE theory has not been read or digested and therefore that insistence begins to challenge the very mathematical subject and nature of algebra itself. Naturally and for the sake of experimentation and the furnishing of physical meetings – a most productive exercise beyond the video conference – the AIAS welcomes patronage of like minded thinkers and scholars who wish to further or accelerate the group research by financial assistance or funding but the main job is done.

The rest will be an exploration of realistic possibility, shrouded before by a blanket of invented, confusing and almost infinitely adjustable parameters that could have the power to make telephone numbers, input as data strings, turn out Man Made Global Warming indicators and alarum! After all, despite dire consequences from actual, excessive (natural) planet temperature, there will be a plus for many lobbies and businesses. If manufacturing or industry can be seen as contributory in its “footprint” on the end of the planet as we know it, then that might aid another lobby such as the “All Nuclear” exponents. No smoke. But of course, none of that could ever happen (!).

Inverted dogma? Amgod? No. We don’t see Dr. Evans as a God. We merely see him as a lifelong and eminent scholar of dual disciplines who has never compromised in the furtherance of understanding in Natural Philosophy – Physics. The calibre of his studies and respect of his genuine colleagues may also be testament to that fact.

Many of us have experienced a degree of the mindless and bitter abuse and attempted defamations issued by dethroned “bishops and rectors” of an erstwhile pseudo-theologian regime. None so fierce or underhand as has been suffered by Dr. Evans. Even as an assistant, artist and herald, I have had tirades of abuse that outside of any sinister elements, are really quite funny in a throbbing, cartoon jugular kind of way . As the programme “Yes Minister” may have shown home truths about Whitehall and Westminster through humour, so the two ancient and decrepit “gentleman’s clubsters” of a bygone hierarchy address each other on TV as do 6 year old children…”See that wastebin?…That’s you that is.”

Fact can indeed be stranger than fiction and I do speak from experience. We must isolate the cream cake of fiction and realise that the salted porridge of scientific fact is far more sustaining and productive. But where and how could that have become TOO obvious and how could such a thing have been so readily ignored over so long by so many?

Robert P. Cheshire


October 30th 2012

About these ads


Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to ““Against Global Warming”

  1. Pingback: “Against Global Warming” « Skeptics Chillin'

  2. Yet throughout is the temptation to accept the model (a set of equations) as the thing and to ignore the actually of the thing itself. The “excuse” is that the equations “predict” so well. OK. That simply means it is a better model than one that does not predict so well. That still does not make the model the thing. Yet, it is the primary justification given for studying the model without reference to the thing modeled.

    The next temptation is to believe and act as if the model (the equations) actually create the thing. If so, there is no longer any need to understand the thing at all. One simply needs only to understand the model. Reality has become irrelevant.

    From that point, the thing has no more relevance or interest. One can spin models out of thin air endlessly (see the infinitely extensible string theory for example) without the possibility or even the necessity of checking with the thing to see if it agrees. Then if it is accidentally found that the thing does not agree with the model, then the thing is certainly mistaken. After all, the thing knows nothing of the god like model that created it and thus is defective as is Plato’s shadows on the cave wall or their post modern equivalents. Reality has become not real, and non reality has become real. Wait, the cycle has not yet closed.

    The ultimate problem is the ultimate theory is to explain everything that is, was, can be, is not, never was, and never can be. As such, it can explain nothing. Which, fortunately, can be used for endlessly larger grants for ever more costly esoteric research projects. Thus returning to the original motivation for the whole scam of pure theory without the taint of reality being involved. Plato and Kant would be proud of their modern day disciples. They have hit pay dirt that Plato and Kant could only dream.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch (the real world) reality doesn’t pay attention to the models. I simply is what it is without apology or regret

  3. johnosullivan

    Lionell, excellently put! Thank you.

  4. s grain consumption increased by 36,280,000 tonnes (40 million
    tons). This can impact both worldwide and local patterns
    of climate and atmosphere-ocean circulation. And these changes will
    not suit human life as it is.

  5. What are Mr Cheshire’s qualifications?

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s