Last week, Ridgecrest was hit with a 6.4 earthquake, the largest in SoCal in over 20 years. Interestingly, just that morning Suspicious0bservers had put out an earthquake alert for the west coast. The next morning, proprietor Ben Davidson cautioned that there was no reason to believe that seismic pressure had been adequately relieved and to expect more activity in the area - which was shortly followed by an even stronger 7.1 earthquake. To the second prediction, he wasn't entirely accurate. His comment was that there was no reason to believe that the slipping fault near Ridgecrest, which runs primarily east-west, would relieve pressure on the much larger San Andreas fault, which runs north-south. If so, then the situation has not changed, and California is still at risk for activity on its major fault line.
How was Suspicious0bservers able to make its successful predictions? They have two theories. First is the belief that cosmic electrical activity affects earth's weather and tectonic systems. They believe that a combination of two events - (1) the weak solar output of the sun at the low-point of an already weak solar cycle, and (2) Earth's weakening and shifting magnetic field - will have the following effects:
- increased cloud cover
- cooler temperatures
- weakened jet streams, leading to more chaotic weather
- increased seismic activity
- increased volcanic activity, to the point of even further lowering Earth temperatures
- stronger electric storms
- a shift towards climate patterns more similar to what was seen several hundred years ago in the Maunder minimum
The second theory was that the elevated snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, which compressed the plates under its weight, has melted, leaving room for rebound movement which might trigger earthquakes. That is why they were able to focus on the US west coast as a place of exceptional risk, even though their primary theories for "space weather" have a more global impact.
Compare the success of the unorthodox space weather promoters to the hyper-establishment doctrine of global warming. Global warming has failed as a theory. How do we know? Because they changed the name! Global warming theory had some supporting evidence, but lots of contradictory evidence. For example, global warming does not predict global cooling. Global warming predicts warming. The recent heat wave in France was taken as evidence of global warming. However, cold snaps like the record-breaking arctic blasts that hit the the interior US last winter must either be ignored, or imagined to have been caused by warming. In reality, there was very little localized cooling predicted by global warming. They did predict that the melting Greenland glaciers would expel so much frigid water that it would disrupt the Gulf Stream current and turn Europe into a snowball. They certainly didn't predict that Greenland glaciers would actually be growing!
When they renamed Global Warming into Climate Change, it was an admission of defeat. It was an admission that results had not matched predictions, and amounted to a re-branding to stay relevant. It was a poor re-branding at that, as no one besides Bill Nye ever expected the climate to be static, so now they're shifting to Climate Chaos as the new slogan. Climate chaos is a more fitting term. The climate is becoming more chaotic. Record cold, record heat, record floods...it would be a tough chore to argue against climate chaos right now. But what have they changed? Only the name! Nothing has actually changed in the theory, at all. It's the same proposed process: human-produced CO2 causes a slight increase in temperature, which causes the atmosphere to absorb more of the biggest greenhouse gas (water vapor), which causes more warming, which causes more vapor, thus more warming, etc. The theory is still that the Earth is just a big water-powered heat bomb waiting to explode, and humans are lighting the fuse on it. When observations don't match a theory's predictions, there are two ways to go about it. Change the theory, or keep the same theory but change the things it predicted. Climate alarmists have done the latter by keeping the same theory but changing the name.
There has been a similar re-branding in evolution. Under Darwinism, there was supposed to be slow, gradual change that led eventually to new species. This hasn't actually been observed. Now, if you were to debate an evolutionist on the subject, they'd probably claim you were wrong and the slow gradual rate of change is exactly what the record shows. Fortunately, you don't have to engage on that particular thorny subject, just refer them to renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, the evolutionist who developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium to account for the lack of gradual change in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium is an admission that the fossil record is not as predicted. Even more, punctuated equilibrium should imply that evolution can be seen relatively quickly if strong artificial selective pressure was applied to a species (such as is done in horticulture and animal husbandry). And yet, we've never seen a new trait evolve, never seen a new gene or chromosome evolve, and certainly never seen a new species evolve. Punctuated equilibrium is proof that the theory of evolution is broken.
Finally, in astrophysics, the theories of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc, all should be taken as admissions that the theories are broken. "There's magical voodoo that can't be observed" is hardly a scientific theory. It's likely that similar Theories of Defeat exists in many other domains as well, so long as you know to look for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment