Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance | Space News

Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe, brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project at It’s one of the greatest controversies in modern times, the question of whether human activity is the cause of changes in Earth’s climate. Today, we’re told that institutional science and academia unite in consensus that the hypothesis of manmade global warming is no longer a hypothesis but a science fact. Ironically, coinciding with this alleged arrival at a scientific consensus, discovery after discovery have affirmed the electromagnetic connection between the Sun, Earth and all planets. What role might this connection play in climate to change on Earth and indeed throughout the solar system? In part 1 of this two-part presentation, physicist Wal Thornhill explores whether consensus science is leading us toward or away from a better understanding of climate change? Whatever happened to Anthropogenic Global Warming? All we hear about now is climate change or Global Warming.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is an alleged consensus amongst climate scientists that we are causing global warming

There’s a big difference! Climate change, including Global Warming is part of the natural order. Anthropogenic Global Warming is an alleged consensus amongst climate scientists that we are causing global warming. But a mere show of expert’s hands does not make it a fact. Modern science suffers the rampant disease of specialism. The symptom is incoherence, with experts in different fields misleading each other about the reliability of their knowledge. The distinguished historian and educator Jacques Barzun, in his book, “Science: the glorious entertainment,” wrote, “Rampant specialism, an arbitrary and purely social evil, is not recognized for the crabbed guild spirit that it is, and few are bold enough to say that carving out a small domain and exhausting its soil affords as much chance for protected irresponsibility as for scientific thoroughness.” That “protected irresponsibility” has allowed the waste of countless billions of dollars on futile “big science” like the Large Hadron Collider, the Gravitational Wave Detectors, the pursuit of “fusion power like the Sun,” the search for dark matter and dark energy, and Anthropogenic Global Warming masquerading as “climate change.

” The truth about global warming may be quite different when one or more of the premises or beliefs on which it based is found to be false. So let’s look at some of them as they relate to climate science. Astronomers believe the Earth has orbited the Sun for billions of years in its present orbit. That’s a comforting assumption that ignores the fact that Newtonian systems of more than two objects are inherently unstable. Meanwhile, thousands of exoplanetary systems don’t support the centuries-old model of the formation of the solar system. Earth scientists believe the astronomers, which allows them to treat the Earth as an undisturbed, isolated system receiving only solar radiant energy. So there is no satisfactory explanation for the excursions in temperature of the last ice age or the distribution of ice. Astronomers believe Venus is the Earth’s twin and that something went wrong with its climate to produce the hellish conditions we find today. There is no evidence for this belief.

But this doesn’t fit “settled science”

But so strong is it that the data showing Venus radiating more heat than it receives from the Sun was blamed on the instruments carried by the landing probes. The belief ignores the copious evidence from ancient reports from around the world in which Venus is described as incandescent and as the archetypal comet. Astrophysicists mislead astronomers and climate scientists that they understand the Sun. The simplistic solar model is a century old and it predicts none of the observed features of the Sun, or its behavior. Astronomers chose to believe the Sun shone constantly until the astronomer Dr. “Jack” Eddy showed that the “solar constant” has not been constant. In 1976 he published a landmark paper in “Science” titled “The Maunder Minimum” where he identified a 70-year period from 1645 to 1715 as a time when solar activity all but stopped. Atmospheric scientists have admitted they don’t understand the weather systems on other planets and even weather on the Sun, which calls into question their understanding of the Earth’s weather systems. I quote, “It’s very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on [Venus] that is so much like the Earth,” said Professor Fred Taylor, a planetary scientist based at Oxford University.

“It is telling us that we really don’t understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.” The weather and lightning on the distant outer planets are the most violent in the solar system. This strongly suggests that the belief that the Earth’s weather systems are driven chiefly by the Sun’s radiant heat has missed another energy source. It is at this fundamental level that astrophysicists misinform everyone with their belief that electricity plays no role in space. So lightning experts regard the Earth as an electrically isolated system and then have to admit they don’t understand what causes lightning and the huge red sprites etc. seen stretching above storms into space. Meanwhile, magnetic ropes have been discovered connecting the Sun to the Earth, which signifies electric current filaments in the plasma between them. But this doesn’t fit “settled science.” Chris Reeve notes that the academic practice of completely ignoring claims or evidence against “settled science” is perhaps the most dangerous and expensive practice of the scientific community today.

Unfortunately, our education systems reinforce settled science because claims against it are not presented to challenge budding scientists to think about alternative views — the lifeblood of scientific progress. Having students look for and compare the predictive successes of alternative models is an excellent way to train them to do real science. At present the beliefs and mistaken concepts are so ingrained that scientists are blind and often hostile to alternatives. Chris writes, “Operating under the assumption that the theoretical structure is only wrong in the details — yet sound as a base for their theoretical structure — the scientific community directs the most sophisticated scientific and mathematical tools known to mankind towards a potentially endless, fruitless search for “new science” at the edges of their own framework. They have embarked upon a journey to prove the textbooks, and since they collectively agree on the “settled” claims, this search is now extremely constrained in the types of questions it can ask.

Claims against settled science are completely ignored

” The mistaken approach exhibits three crucial patterns: First, the treatment of former competing claims as “settle science” rather than routinely checking them against the observations. Claims against settled science are completely ignored. Second, the tendency to stop learning of alternative inferences which originate from alternative scientific frameworks, once a believable one is found. And third, the idea that we can simplistically rule things out in the sciences sufficient to proceed, only forward — never backwards — in the manner of Sherlock Holmes. The combination of all three of these patterns into one single pattern constitutes risk-taking behaviors. These risk-taking behaviors have become so normalized by the scientific community that few even notice that the entire structure is vulnerable to collapse — or even that there exists a significant risk at all.

Each pattern can be observed to be a problem on its own, without any need to consider the others. But when they become combined into one single approach, as has occurred in a number of historical instances, this is how science can spend decades or centuries asking the wrong questions. It all starts with the notion of “settled science.” Arthur Koestler in “The Sleepwalkers” wrote, “I have been interested, for a long time, in the psychological process of discovery as the most concise manifestation of man’s creative faculty — and in that converse process that blinds him towards truths which, once perceived by a seer, become so heartbreakingly obvious.” With these unacknowledged shortcomings we have bookshelves filled with textbooks, science journals and PhD theses that would stretch to the Moon, largely unread, fostering the impression that we understand most things. And the public is assailed with documentaries that breathlessly deliver and repeat fashionable “settled science” fiction as a fact. The broad scope of the Electric Universe paradigm makes it “heartbreakingly obvious” that climate scientists have been misled by astronomers and astrophysicists so they have no real concept of recent Earth history and they don’t understand the real source of lightning and the electrical input to weather systems.

For example, the major city in northern Australia, Darwin, was utterly destroyed in tropical cyclone ‘Tracy’ in 1974. The catastrophe was described in part, “At 3am, the eye of the cyclone passed over Darwin, bringing an eerie stillness. There was a strange light, a diffuse lightning, like St. Elmo’s fire.” There was no solar energy being supplied to the 150 kilometres an hour winds at 3am in the morning. “A diffuse lightning” is an apt description of the slow electrical glow or dark mode plasma discharge (distinct from impulsive lightning) that drives all rotary storms and influences weather patterns. That is why the electrically hyperactive gas giant planets have overwhelmingly violent storms while receiving very little solar energy. History makes it clear that climate does change. The real question is whether our activities today are a significant cause of global warming. Climate science is not so well established, nor is the data so clear, that it can blame our carbon dioxide emissions for climate change. Certainly, mysterious Venus cannot be held out as an example of how we could end up.

In fact, all the evidence suggests quite simply that global warming is not man-made. For continuous updates on Space News from the Electric Universe, stay tuned to