Einstein exposed.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (107)
sorted by:
We are not yet in a world where they can blatantly contradict physical books on known scientific findings and assuming that nothing you read can possibly be the truth because of the source means they've programmed you effectively.
We already are. Climatehoax, at least in "greenhouse" area blatantly contradicts basics of thermodynamics. But that contradiction is absolutely silenced in any literature. Basics of "geenhouse" include not only rise of average temperature, but also unalienable lowering of temperature gradients in time and distance. Show me a single climatehoax article (peer-reviewed or popular) touching "greenhouse" question where lowering of temperature gradients is ever mentioned. And this have huge importance. Rising average temperature from 5°C (with -40°C to +50°C gradients) to 15°C due to greenhouse effect does not mean that we will have -30°C to +60°C hell. It is likely will be something like +5°C to +25°C with average +15°C. Isn't that much better than current -40°C to +50°C range?
Scientific findings does not matter when those who control information have an agenda.
I haven't met a single thinking person who believes what's being said about the climate. We have far too narrow a view within recorded history to have any idea what we (modern science 🤔) are talking about.
Then why that totally murky and suspcious story about Einshtein is so believble for you?
Physiscs of course, less politicised than climatology, biology or medicine, but it is under influence too. If Einshtein story is not enough for you, take a look at a story with fusion energy, when since 60s we are every year promised with "cheap fusion energy" in 10 years. All 60 years along with zero practically useful results. If you compare that with nuclear fission, then you find out that first practically useful nuclear fission power plant was connected to power grid in 1954, just after just 21 years since first idea of nuclear chain reaction appeared in 1933. Taking in account scientific and tech progress from 1933 to 1960, nuclear fusion reactors should have been took less time from idea to practically useful result. But today it is over 80 years of endless "in 10 years" promises and endless tax money throwed into that scam. There are also many other examples of sudden progress slowdown, from high-temperature superconductors to space exploration.
Scientific and technological progress slowdown since late 1960s is undeniable, even electronics have no any significant breakthroughs since that time, all we have is just a miniaturisation of well known things, nothing really new was invented or discovered at all.
Climate of the past, even very distant past is not a secret at all. For reference you could search for "eocene climate" f.e. Last stable climate laster for tens of millions of years that was disrupted by some cataclism with following ice age we are coming out of. Earth was green from pole to pole with moderate and stable climate with average temperature around +20°C and CO2 concentration of 1200ppm. It is more than reasonable to suppose that this was natural Earth climate, we are leading to. In honor of that times when mammals developed, we keep temperature in our homes at around +20°C (not +5°C). Also, 1200ppm of CO2 is recommended concentration for best harvest in greenhouses.
Of course, data from paleontologists does not fit into modern narrative, that is why they refer only to a tiny period of last centuries.
Science has a history of being wrong for a span then corrected then being wrong then being corrected for us to assume what is known about the climate is correct is foolish to say the least and hubristic at most same goes with all fields of science.
Because Einstein at his worst was a once in a generation thinker, whatevers been built upon his observations I cannot say the same and many very smart people have spent a lot of time trying to disprove his observations