Master of Science - 4/22/2025

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Master of Science with host Professor James McCanny.
The good professor's career spans fifty years as a university teacher, scientist,
and engineer. Each week, he will explore the rapidly changing
world of science as many long held theories are crumbling
under the weight of new data. He will cover the

(00:23):
fields of geology, archaeology, meteorology, oceanography, space science, astronomy, cosmology,
biological evolution, virology, energy, mathematics, and war. So please welcome
the host of Master of Science, James McCanny.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
Good evening once again, everybody, and welcome. This week, I
was going to talk about the nefarious side of the
adoption of climate change and the politicization, the taking of
a concept for control. I was going to talk about that.

(01:14):
That's an important aspect of all of this. Now. Last
week I talked about science in the history of where
did all this climate change science come from? In the beginning,
it had in what we call the greenhouse effect. Something
you notice nobody mentions that word anymore. They talk about

(01:37):
CO two. The implication is that the greenhouse effect global warming,
which is a misnomer, which is a terribly misuged term
because heat and temperature are two different things in science
and chemistry and physics, totally different things, and they're using
them interchangeably. But what it is, Instead of getting into

(02:01):
the political ramifications, I'm going to postpone that a week
or so, and I'm going to talk more about the
science because I think it's I think it's what is.
This is what is missing from the whole the whole
argument is understanding that the science behind it is bogus.

(02:24):
And I want to I want to lay this out
so that it's very clear for all of you, I
mean down to the level of third graders. Okay, so
let me I'm going to take this one piece at
a time. Remember that last week I told you that
the original concept of the greenhouse effect started when NASA

(02:48):
needed an explanation for the high temperature of Venus when
it was discovered that they thought Venus was a earthlike
planet that just had the CO two app hemosphere. And
here's the quagmire, and it's what really has been the
crux of a lot of bad science that has come

(03:10):
out of NASA is trying to defend themselves against Emmanuel Velikowski,
and most people don't understand this Velakowsky said that Venus
this is long, I mean decades before anybody could send
a satellite to Venus. He said, it's got to be hot,
a chemically hot planet, because it's a new planet and

(03:34):
it's just a newly formed planet. Of course, Velakowski was
not a scientist. One of his mistakes, it was a
tactical mistake, was that he tried to use scientific theories
of the day which were incorrect, to try and to
try and analyze his historical findings that came down to

(03:57):
us from texts, ancient texts. He couldn't. He tried to
rectify things like how did a comet come out of Jupiter? Well,
he said, it just popped out of Jupiter. Well, physically
that's not possible. Something that is a planet sized object
to just come popping out of Jupiter doesn't work. In fact,

(04:19):
that was a point when I had the debate, the
on radio debate with doctor David Morrison. That's something that
I pointed out that it was captured the process that
is very well understood in physics, in celestial mechanics. It
was captured by Jupiter. And this is something also that

(04:40):
I discovered in my work dealing with the plasma discharge
comet model is that the comets a lot of times
get triggered. There's a triggering mechanism. For example, there was
a comet Homes and I made a prediction because it's
orbit took it between Earth and Jupiter. No, I'm sorry,

(05:01):
Mars and Jupiter on a given date, and I said, okay,
I'm going to make a prediction. I said, it's going
to have an it's going to be excited because it's
going to be caught up in the electrical discharge that's
already connected between Mars and Jupiter and Bingo. On that day,
comet Homes explodes into brightness, and of course NASA has

(05:25):
to come up with their excuse. Oh, an asteroid hit it,
I mean, if this is so funny. In fact, there's
a chapter in one of my books it's called an
asteroid hit it because every time something doesn't make sense
for NASA, Oh, an asteroid hit it. You know, the
dinosaurs died. Oops, an asteroid hit it. Whatever it is,

(05:47):
there is a magnetic field that change. Oops, an asteroid
hit it. The planets spin backwards of what they should
be if they all coalesce from a dusk out Oops,
an astroid hit it. And so I actually have a chapter,
vicious chapter in one of my books, an astroid hit it,
because that's their pad answer for everything. If the whole

(06:07):
planet urin a spins backwards or is tilted on its side, oh,
an asteroid hit it. You know, it's like a stuck record.
But at any rate, getting back to the idea of
Venus being a hot planet, and also Venus does not
rotate it very quickly. But okay, so let's go back

(06:31):
to the nineteen seventies and I want to fill in
some of this history. And I talked about this last week.
Velikowski's books came out in nineteen fifties. He was selling
like crazy, and the news media went to the astronomical
community and they said, well, this guy's selling all these
books saying that Venus was a comet became a planet,

(06:54):
and they're outrage because this couldn't possibly be true. And
so the news media comes to the scientific community and says, well,
what you're sorry, they didn't have one. So Velikovsky had
made some predictions, one of them being that Venus should
be a very hot planet, and so of course Nass

(07:15):
said no. Other things like electricity that comets were had
some kind of properties, electrical properties. He really didn't know
other than the ancients talked about these electrical connections between
Jupiter and the comets and Jupiter and Mars et cetera.
And I also mentioned that Jupiter should have a magnetic field,

(07:35):
you know, and these are predictions based on what the
ancients talked about. Member of Velakowski was not a scientist.
He was studying calendars and the ancient texts and came
up with all of this stuff from what the ancients
talked about. Okay, So anyway, the end result was that

(07:57):
Sagan and the boys took him to this teen seventy
four American Association for the Advansmen of Science meeting and
basically buried him, saying nothing he could say is correct,
that Belakowski is totally wrong, pseuded science. Okay, So anyway, finally,
excuse me. The Russians land a space probe on Venus

(08:18):
and it's hot. It's a tremendously hot, hot enough to
melt lead. I talked about the Magellan probe going around
Venus mapping it, and also about Sagan taking the RCBO
telescope and looking at Venus and determining that there were
a lot of craters they could tell us by the
scattering of the radio beam from the Ercibo telescope and saying, oh,

(08:43):
it must be old because of all the craters, thinking
the craters were like the Moon. The problem was the
craters were not like the lunar craters, impact craters. They
were volcanic craters. And the Magellan probe proved that the
surface of Venus was like a big bowl of oatmeal
bubbling in the morning. Big mountains would form in then

(09:05):
just cave in and form valleys, and then valleys would
form into mountains. And so Venus is this hot cauldron,
bubbling volcanic planet in sulfuric acid in the air. It
rains sulfuric acid like water rain on Earth, but sulfuric
acid rain. So that Venus is this tremendously hot and

(09:27):
it literally is a new planet. And that's what my
work shows is how planets are formed from the capture
of comets, and the tail drag is what causes their
orbits to circularize, as in the case of Venus. But okay,
so let's go back to where the greenhouse effects started.

(09:47):
So NASA, when the Russians measured the high temperature of Venus.
NASA was like, oh, we got to come up with
some excuse here, because they just proved Velikovski correct, and
we have to have some kind of legitimate scientific proof
or reason theoretical reason why Venus is this tremendously hot planet.

(10:08):
So Sagan comes up with the green house effect, the
idea that sunlight would come in, the heat would be
trapped from going out uh and being released from the planet,
and therefore building up this high temperature and causing the

(10:28):
planet to like liquefy. But there's some problems here. There's
some serious problems, and the first being that that's not
the greenhouse. See. Now this is one of the big
misnomers because if you have a for example, your car

(10:49):
in a hot day and the sun shining in the summertime,
the sun shines in and it heats up the car,
and that visible light turns into infrared light, and the
infrared light strapped from getting out, so the heat keeps
building up. And so this is kind of what they're
saying is happening to Planet Earth. The problem is Earth

(11:10):
doesn't have a physical greenhouse roof to maintain the infrared heat.
And so what happens with infrared heat It goes up
in the atmosphere, there's no glass ceiling, and the heat escapes.
Let's take a look at another aspect of this, and
that is that the Earth every day receives a tremendous

(11:37):
amount of energy from the Sun and as it spins
around a nightside to the nightside, all of that heat
is released. And if it's cloudy, what's happening is the
clouds have moisture in it. The heat is maintained in
the water. Another way of looking this is as a

(12:00):
concept called heat capacity. In other words, air with water
vapor in it has much more propensity to maintain. Heat
or heat is energy. A form of energy is heat energy.
It's the movement of the molecules and also the mass
that is related to the energy. So water molecules give

(12:23):
dry air. If you have a dry air, there's less
heat capacity than moist are and so the clouds have
heat capacity and they maintain the heat. So it seems
warmer on a cloudy night than it does on a
clear night, and a clear night the infrared just goes woosh,
goes right out of the atmosphere and it does this

(12:44):
every day. So the Earth does not have a glass ceiling,
and it's that glass ceiling in the greenhouse that maintains
the air, the warm air from escaping. Okay, so the
greenhouse effect is a misknown It is bad science, and
there are many problems with this, so that they would

(13:06):
have to rely on the cooler clouds to reflect the
heat and heat up the hotter planet. So it does
not work thermodynamics, it's a contradiction. It does not work
to heat up the planetary core of Venus. It simply
does not work. In other words, sunlight supposedly comes in.

(13:27):
And there's another problem is when you get down to
the surface of the Venus, about a smidgen of sunlight
actually makes it to the surface of Venus. So it's
not enough to drive the greenhouse effect, which is bogus anyway,
it's not enough to drive the greenhouse effect to melt
the planet. The heat is coming from internally in the

(13:51):
planet because it's a new, newly formed planet. The heat
is going outwards, not inwards. So the reason I'm going
through this is because last week I ended the show
by just saying that the greenhouse effect is bogus. It
does not work on Venus, and so I wanted to
flush this out a little bit and for the for

(14:15):
people there who really are not scientifically adept. Other problems
arose immediately with this idea that Venus was heated by
a greenhouse effect. For example, there's no wind at the
surface of Venus, so how do you And Venus does
not rotate on its axis very fast, it's like literally

(14:40):
months shining or one side is facing the sun, So
how does the heat from the warm side get around
to the cool side. And it turns out that the
surface temperature of Venus is the same all over. There
are no winds at the surface of Venus, so there's
no wind to carry the heat from the hots side

(15:00):
around to the dark side. You see, it has all
of these problems, and all of these problems were pointed out,
but don't tell that to the arrogant NASA scientists. Don't
tell them because they and this is one of the
big problems and it exists today, is that the scientists
at NASA have basically free reign. Whatever they say gets published,

(15:24):
it gets it's like unquestionable. And it turns out that
really literally almost ninety nine point nine percent of everything
they have done in the last sixty years is patently false,
starting with the greenhouse effect. So why is this important
relative to climate change on Earth? Okay, well, last week

(15:45):
I pointed out that let's look at the concentration of
CO two in the atmosphere of Earth relative to the
concentration of CO two on the planet Venus. So if
the greenhouse effect doesn't work on Venus, then it should
really not work on planet Earth. And the explanation goes
as follows. Earth has point oh four point zero four

(16:11):
percent CO two in its atmosphere. Venus as ninety five
percent CO two in its atmosphere. So if you just
take percentage wise, Venus has twenty four hundred times as

(16:31):
much CO two in its atmosphere as Earth. That's if
Venus had the same atmospheric pressure and composition as Earth.
But Venus has a much larger atmosphere. It's a thousand
times greater than the atmosphere of Earth. So multiply that
twenty four hundred times one thousand, you get two million,

(16:52):
four hundred thousand times the amount of CO two on
Venus as on Earth. Two million, four hundred thousand times
as much CO two on venus as on planet Earth.
So if it doesn't work, the greenhouse effect doesn't work
on Venus, then how does it work on Earth with

(17:14):
two million, four hundred times four hundred thousand times less
CO two? But it doesn't. It simply does not work. Okay,
let's look at another aspect of CO two bad science.
Take a look at a coal fired power plant or

(17:37):
a nuclear power plant, or you're automobile driving up and
down the road. These are engines. These are heat engines basically,
and they all follow something called the Carno cycle. The
Carno cycle basically says that if you have a heat engine,
you have an exchange of heat, you trap some of

(17:58):
the energy of that heat. Now you have to cool
the engine down so that you can repeat this cycle.
And that's why you have a radiator on an automobile,
for example. And in for example a coal fired power plant,
you're extracting energy from the burning process. You're creating steam,
and the steam drives turbines, and the turbine spin the

(18:20):
generators and that's what generates electricity. And the same thing
with a nuclear power plant. You generate steam, the steam
drives a turbine. The turbine spins. It spins a generator,
generates electricity and delivers it on the power lines out
to the businesses and homes. Okay, so now the claim,

(18:41):
the greenhouse global climate change claim, is that the CO
two goes up in the atmosphere and over a long
period of time, raises the Earth's temperature by a smidgen
and therefore we're all going to die. It's going to
melt the ice gaps, and we're you know, the everything

(19:03):
is going to be inundated, and you know, all kinds
of bad things are going to happen. And by the way,
it's like every five years they predict that the ice
caps are going to melt, and they don't do that.
But anyway, back to the idea that you're burning these fuels,
and the supposedly the story is that in ten or

(19:23):
twenty years, the CO two in the atmosphere is going
to cause a greenhouse effect, which they don't talk about
because remember, the greenhouse effect doesn't work. It doesn't work
on venus, it shouldn't work on Earth. But they don't
say that that level of science is obfuscated. Okay, so
now let's look at the amount of heat going into

(19:45):
the atmosphere right now from the cold burning plant, from
the automobile, from a nuclear power plant, or from a
gas natural gas fired power plant, same thing, and compare
it the amount of heat that's going directly into the
atmosphere right now. So the Carnal cycle says that, let's

(20:06):
use approximate numbers, that about seventy percent of the heat
energy that's produced by burning fuel, the high energy content
fuel coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, about seventy five percent
of the heat energy goes into the atmosphere in the

(20:27):
cooling process, and only about twenty to twenty five to
maybe max thirty percent of the energy goes into useful
work making a cargo down road or generate electricity. So
eighty percent really, when you count in all the factors,
let's let's just be generous, seventy five percent of the

(20:49):
energy that is being burned in diesel, gasoline, seventy five
percent of the energy is going directly into the atmosphere
right now, not in ten years, into right now. So
that's billions of times more energy going into the atmosphere
right now. And so why don't the climate change people

(21:11):
talk about that? They don't, And that's the quagmire. That
is the quagmire because there's voluminous amounts of energy going
into the atmosphere all the time from these sources that
were burning what I call high energy content fuels, but
nobody talks about it. And so what happens to all

(21:33):
that heat, Well, when the Earth spins around at night,
all that heat just goes whoosh out of the atmosphere.
It goes away, and every day the Earth expels that
amount of energy. And it's like, here's the example I
always use. Imagine you have a nail and you want
to hit the nail with a hammer, and you want
to drive it into a piece of wood. And so

(21:55):
you have this great, big sledge hammer and you hit
the nail compared to a little jeweler's hammer, a little
jeweler's hammer like the jeweler's use a little like this,
and they you hit the nail with that. So the

(22:15):
idea is that that the you're comparing this giant mallet
hitting the mail the nail, which is the equivalent of
the heat going off into the atmosphere right now in
the greenhouse effect, the global climate change claim is that

(22:36):
this little mallet, this little jeweler's mallet is the one
you should worry about. So let's talk now about heat
content and heat capacity. Here's another bogus part of the
climate change science. Now what do they do, what do

(22:59):
they talk? They're talking about the temperature rising by a
point whatever, one degree centigrade in so many years, and
this's causing all these problems. And then they have computer
modeling and computer modeling. If you want to fix something
in science, do some computer modeling. It'll make it all better.

(23:21):
But at any rate, Okay, going back to the heat content,
the type of measurements they're making in the climate change world.
I jokingly say that, you know, a professor sits in
his office in the Ivy Tower Ivory Tower, and he

(23:42):
every now and then sticks the hand out the window
with the thermometer and measures the temperature and records that.
And that's what they're doing in the sense, that's what's
really going on. So they have temperature sensors that are
all over the world. But the problem is the land mass,
the oceans, the ocean at a certain depth is gaining energy.

(24:10):
These are all components of the world basically a thermodynamic structure,
and they're not taking data from these they're using satellites,
they're taking temperatures from satellites, and I've even seen recently
this is an interesting one. I just saw this where

(24:31):
they were encouraging shipping companies to use low sulfur content
fuel and they expected that the temperature in these shipping
lanes should drop because they're using a lower content fuel.
And what actually happened is it increased. And then they realized, well,

(24:53):
it's because the aerosols from the sulfur compounds are no
longer in the atmosphere, and so the the actual end
result was in a lowering of the temperature. So following
their recommendation of using low sulfur content fuels, there was
actually a lowering of the temperature, the opposite effect of

(25:13):
what I'm sorry, there was an increase in temperature, which
was the opposite effect of what they predicted. So, at
any rate, getting back the idea of heat content, they
don't have enough data, it's simply put. And also they're
collecting data at places like the airport. The airport is

(25:36):
this big reservoir of cement and it has a lot
of heat content, and therefore the temperature at the airport
is going to be a degree or two higher than
in the city that's nearby, in the suburbs, and then
it's going to be even higher than the surrounding countryside.

(26:00):
Putting where you place the thermometer is going to make
a big difference in your results. But I want to
talk about the heat content, just the thermodynamic concept of
heat content. Take two boxes and put them on a table,
identical boxes with identical atmospheric content in each box at

(26:20):
exactly the same temperature. They have exactly the same thermodynamic properties.
Now how much heat you could calculate or you could
measure the amount of heat content in each of these
boxes and they should be the same. Now one of
the boxes adds some water vapor, just some water vapor

(26:43):
and lower the temperature just a little bit. So the
box with the dry air would have a higher temperature.
So your climate scientists would say, aha, global warming. The
temperature is going up. But if the if you look
at the heat content of the box with the water
vapor in the atmosphere, then the heat there's more heat

(27:10):
in that box in the temperature is lower. So temperature
is not a measure of heat content. And this is
an error that they're making. This is and it is
so universal. I just can't believe that scientists who went
through and got it more than a first year chemistry
you know, SA in chemistry, should know this. This is

(27:32):
absolutely absurd that people are mistakenly talking interchanging the term
temperature in heat content or global warming. When they say
global warming, they're implying that there's an energy increase in
the atmosphere due to this CO two blocking the infrared
light from getting out and causing a greenhouse effect. But

(27:56):
it's not true. Temperature and heat content two totally different things.
They're related, they're related, but they are very different. In
this example of two boxes on the table, one has
a lower temperature, but it has more heat content is
a perfect example another example of bad science being used

(28:20):
in the alarm driven climate change. The next thing I
want to talk about is emotional science. When they get
kids into a classroom and the world's going to end,
you all have to go out and march up down
the street and prevent the use of CO two emitting machines.

(28:45):
Now I want to talk about nuclear power. This is
absolutely amazing. My advanced physics degree is in nuclear in
solid state physics, so I do have a little bit
of experience, and I'm probably one of the few nuclear
scientists on the planet that opposes nuclear power. Okay, so

(29:07):
let's take a look at nuclear power. It is said
that it is green, and whoever thought up this idea
and was pawning this on the public is I got
to give him credit for deception. That's all I can
tell you. Nuclear power is probably the most horrendously polluting

(29:28):
power source ever imagined by man. And the reason is
not because it doesn't give off CO two. It actually
does give off a little bit of CO two, not
as much as a coal fired plant for the amount
of energy produced. But it's the fuel, the processing of
the fuel. There are places like Saint Louis or Oregon

(29:51):
where there were processing plants for a nuclear material during
World War two, and they took and they spread out
the residue from the cleaning process all over the countryside.
And now those there are landfills that are full of
the waste, the nuclear waste from those processing plants, or

(30:16):
they just spread it like with a like a cow
munu spreader up in Oregon. And so these regions have
very high nuclear content. But the problem is the nuclear
fuel that's being used today in nuclear power plants. I
call it high octane fuel. It's being derived from very
high energy sources, and when they get done burning it,

(30:39):
it's not completely spent, so that it's still producing a
lot of heat. So they put it in a cask
and they put it around a nuclear power plant, and
they have to continually cool these. So the more fuel
you burn, the more energy it takes to cool them.
And this has to go on forever. There was a
big fear the number of years ago there was a

(31:00):
flood in the Missouri Plain, the Missouri River that flows
out of the Dakotas down in I believe it's through
Kansas and down into the Mississippi River. Eventually there was
a nuclear power plant on the Missouri River and because
of the flooding, they had to shut it down. Okay, well,
what's the problem. They couldn't continue to cool the nuclear

(31:24):
waste casks, and if one of those would have broken,
it would have poisoned the entire Mississippi River valley all
the way down to the Gulf of Mexic the Gulf
of America now and poisoned the entire Gulf of the
the entire body of water at the end of the
Mississippi River and irreversibly unbelievable. And people are saying, oh,

(31:48):
nuclear power is green. No, nuclear power is not green.
Don't ever say that. Don't ever imagine that that is
the case. Nuclear power is the most horrifically polluting source
of energy, and it abounts to about fifteen percent of
our national energy budget. We could shut down the nuclear

(32:12):
power plants overnight by simply turning a light off and
conserving power. The whole issue of nuclear power is horrendous. Additionally,
about they're about one hundred. There are a few less
than one hundred nuclear power plants still active in the

(32:34):
United States. They keep extending their commissions because nobody saved
the money to decommission these nuclear power plants, and they're leaking.
A lot of them have the piping that's leaking into
the ground and once it gets into the water table,
that's going to poison the water for huge areas around

(32:55):
these nuclear power plants. People have asked me as a
physicists and I have knowledge of rocket launching capabilities, etc.
Once I did a lecture dealing with how can you
get rid of the nuclear waste? And somebody proposed, well,
we could just put it in rockets and shoot it
off to the sun. No, there is so much of it.

(33:19):
In fact, if you take all the rocket launches that
have occurred in the world in modern history since rockets
began launching, if you could put use all of those
all of those launches to simply move nuclear waste into space,
it wouldn't even make a dent in the amount of
nuclear waste that you would. And then you have the

(33:41):
problem of nuclear waste. What if one of those rocket
fails on the way up and that falls into the
ocean and pollutes the entire ocean. A single cask from
a nuclear power plant would be enough to poison a
tremendous part of the world. Nuclear power is a quickly
bad source of energy. Okay, Now I want to talk

(34:05):
about the many factors that affect climate. That just hundreds,
if not thousands of factors. The main assumption has always
been that we receive our energy from the light from
the sun. And what we receive actually, if you go
out into outer space outside of our protective atmosphere, you

(34:28):
have X rays, you have ultraviolet light, a visible light
which is what actually passes through the atmosphere. You have
infrared and microwaves, and so all of this radiation is
coming at us from space, from the Sun, and most
of that is blocked by the upper atmosphere, and so

(34:49):
the visible light is what mainly comes into our atmosphere.
And so that's always been heralded as the source of
energy for weather, for tornadoes, for hurricanes, for whatever's going on, lightning,
whatever it is, it has to come from that source
of energy. And it's completely wrong. That concept is completely wrong.

(35:11):
We receive more energy in the form of electrical energy,
and it's something that meteorologists don't even understand or acknowledge. Hurricanes,
the most powerful weather systems on Earth, are driven by
electrical currents, not warm water. This is one of the
most absurd things that has ever been imagined by man.

(35:36):
So what astronomers talk about when, for example, we have
seen hurricanes on Mars. There's no water on Mars to
create a hurricane, So how to do hurricanes form there's
no warm water on Mars. The biggest hurricanes in history,

(35:56):
there's one called the perfect Stormhoark. Three hurricanes joined together
in the North Atlantic in early November. What was that
years nineteen was in nineteen ninety one, the October blizzards.
That's right, nineteen ninety one. I was in those. One
of the hurricanes was what I call jokingly a hymricane.

(36:19):
In my weather book, I talk about Himocanes are overland hurricanes,
and this hurricane came across the northern border states of
the United States and went out, and that was one
of the three hurricanes that joined to form the Perfect storm.
Another one came through the southeast up over Appalachia, and

(36:40):
a lot of people died in that because it created
a huge winter storm that people were not prepared for.
Late October, this went up the East coast. This was
the second storm that joined to make the Perfect storm.
And then there was a third one that came up
the eastern seaboard. These three hurricanes joined to form the
Perfect storm. But in the North Atlantic in early November,

(37:04):
there was no warm water. The biggest hurricane in history,
what we call the perfect storm, was located in the
North Atlantic Ocean in November in frigid, icy water. So
the idea that hurricanes form from warm water is absolutely absurd.

(37:25):
And that's one of the things that my weatherwork discovered
long ago was that hurricanes are formed by a vertical
electric field a discharge of the vertical electric field. So
let me explain how the water warms up, the water
cools as a hurricane passes over it. It's the wind

(37:46):
of the hurricane evaporating water off the surface of the ocean.
When the wind blows over the surface of the ocean,
it evaporates water and that creates a cooling effect. And
so the meteorology just mistakenly think, oh, when the hurricane passes,
the water is cooler. Therefore, that is what's driving the hurricane.

(38:07):
Absolutely bogus, and it doesn't. The three laws of thermodynamics
are completely violated. There's no way to take a little
bit of temperature change from water and have it organize
this completely organized storm. That's impossible. Works the other way,

(38:27):
if you stop the energy source driving the hurricane, it
would dissipate in a minute. It wouldn't keep doing it.
How can this wind keep coming into this low pressure cell.
What's causing the low pressure cell at the base of
the eye of the hurricane. It's the vertical electric field.
It's the current that's being drawn up that the center
of the eye of the hurricane, and that's what causes

(38:49):
it to spin. Okay, so I'm not going to go
into hurricane science. But what I'm telling you is that
it has nothing to do with sun light, because hurricanes
form on the dark side of Earth all the time.
It has nothing to do with sunlight. More energy comes
into our atmosphere every day electrically than comes in through

(39:13):
visible light. And isn't it amazing that meteorologists don't acknowledge us.
They don't know anything about it, and they don't include
it in their models. This is one of the absurdities
of what they call the hurricane the National Hurricane Prediction Centers.
There's about a dozen of them now around the country,
and these people actually get paid to do computer modeling

(39:35):
of hurricanes, and actually people actually listen to them. The leader,
the person who actually formulated all of that, his name
was William Gray, got up on a podium, this is
back in the nineteen nineties, got up on a podium
and said, all of the work they've been doing is
completely bogus. It has no value at all, and he

(39:56):
walked away. Yet the Hurricane Prediction Centers continue working, continue
getting federal funding, and continue to exonerate this bogus science
that somehow visible light from the sun is causing hurricanes.
It's simply not true. The same for tornadoes, cyclones, water spouts,

(40:20):
cyclonic storms. I've talked about previously the tornadoes that form
out of the caldero's calledderas of volcanoes. On a clear
blue day, you have a volcano and it's got a
tornado coming out the top. What causes that? That's the
vertical electric field. Now, a couple of shows ago I

(40:42):
talked extensively about the vertical electric field and the storms,
et cetera. But back to climate change. They don't include
this major source of energy in their models at all.
I mean, this is absolutely absurd. Another aspect of what

(41:07):
we call climate, which really isn't. It's let's just say
this climate is long term weather. That's all it is.
And so let's talk about weather just a little bit.
I've always said that if it's warm, then there's a
wind from the south. If it's cold, the wind's from
the north, and vice versa. If the wind's from the north,

(41:29):
it's going to be colder. If the wind is from
the south, it's going to be warmer. And that's your
first predictive element, is what direction is the wind coming from.
That is basically a rule of thumb. But here's the point.
A lot of times, a hot summer day, this drives

(41:50):
me crazy. On a hot summer day, the newsman is
on there and he's pumping the idea of climate change,
and everybody's hot, and I hear people say, oh, yeah,
climate change, it must be real. It's hot today, it's
hot where you are. You know, the world is a
big place. And this is how they really how gullible

(42:12):
people are. Let me put it this way. There's two
aspects to this. It's the it's the the overall ability
to fool people. And they wouldn't be able to be
fooled if they weren't so gullible and ignorant about science.
There was a document who's called what Silent Weapons for

(42:32):
Quiet Wars was published back in the nineteen fifties one
of the Rand think tank studies, and one of the
goals was to make the public scientifically stupid and mathematically
and they've accomplished that. The public does not understand science.
Simple concepts like heat is not the same thing as temperature,

(42:53):
Very simple things people just don't understand. But here's the situation,
and I see this time and time again. If the
wind is from the south. Then guess what, there's a
wind from the north that's blowing into the area because
of basically the conservation of our atmosphere. If the wind

(43:16):
is in your area is blowing from the south, then
someplace there's wind from the north blowing down to the
place where that warm air is coming from, making it
colder there. So there's a balance. There's also let's talk
about something that I know a little bit about. It's
called wind energy. There's the belief that where you are,

(43:37):
if you have your wind turbine there and it's not windy, okay.
There's the expression, honey, we can't watch TV tonight because
the wind's not blowing. If you're depending on a three
blade wind turbine, well, that would be true. However, the
wind is there someplace. And if you take a country
the size of the United States or Canada, or even

(44:00):
a smaller area like England for example, if you take
the average wind and you take the overall wind energy
over a large area, it's a constant. So if it's
not blowing in New York, it's blowing in la. If
it's not blowing in La is blowing in Portland, Orgon.
If it's not blowing in Portland, Orgon, it's blowing in Houston, Texas.

(44:23):
And so the wind energy is a constant if you
take a large enough volume a large enough surface area
of the planet. So the same is true with temperature.
If it's warmer you were, or if it's warm more
you are, it is colder where somebody else is. And

(44:46):
the idea that they're pumping this on the evening news,
oh the climate change, or like, oh, there's a tornado.
I just saw this on the news where they're saying
that the tornado alley is moving from Oklahoma farther east. Well, statistically,
if you average this and if you look in five years,
then might be moving back to Oklahoma. It's just a

(45:07):
matter of statistics. Every now and then a record will
be broken, like a temperature record, and if it's they
ignore the cold records when there's a cold record, but
if there's a warm record broken, oh, look at that.
He must be global warming, and everybody's yeah, it must
be global warming. Look at that record was broken. It

(45:28):
has not records being broken all the time, and they
will continue to be broken all the time because that's
simply the way it is. But the back to the
idea of climate, convincing people of this climate mythology, of
this climate religion, of this climate bogus science is partly

(45:52):
due to the fact that people don't understand things like, well,
it's like hotter here, Well how about the people down there?
It's colder there. And I've seen that over and over
again where it's really really hot, say in the United States,
and people are saying, oh, global warming, and it's very
cold maybe in South America or Central America. But there's

(46:16):
a balance, and so this, the ability to fool the
public is commensurate with the ability to push this global
climate change agenda. And it's an agenda, and I'm going
to be getting into that. That's a topic that I'll
be covering in future weeks. I may not go next
week because there's some other important scientific topics to cover,

(46:41):
but the whole concept of climate change, that somehow something's
going to heat up a couple degrees and then scientists,
the Consortium of Scientists agreeing on this. Now, this is
another aspect is very important and understanding the impetus of

(47:03):
global climate change, and that is simply the way it's funded.
I like this when people say ninety five percent of people.
Of ninety five percent of scientists agree that climate change
is real, that's because they've squeezed out all the people
who disagreed. The people who disagreed couldn't get funding. And

(47:25):
there's no funding for somebody that comes up with a
negative result. It's only those people that get a positive
result that keep the funding. And if the government is
pouring money into that agenda, then guess what, there's enough
scientists out there who will will sell their scientism to

(47:48):
the government at the highest as the highest bidder, because
this is huge money. We're talking hundreds of billions of
dollars per year in grant money. And this is one
of the problems. In fact, they're right now in Washington
trying to decide on this, and unfortunately most politicians are
not scientists, so they don't realize the level of deception

(48:11):
in this top down government funding method of funding science.
And here's the way it works. The National Science Foundation
and National Institute of Health. Are they an Environmental Production
Agency or NASA whoever comes out with the funding. It's
like a catalog. It comes out at the beginning of

(48:34):
the year, and the scientists go there and they're like
squirrels that forgot how to forage. They're looking in the
list of grants and they go, oh, we can do
this one, we can do this one, and they sign
up and eventually they all get their funding and are
all happy. So do you think they're going to come
up with a negative result and say no, there's no
climate change. To get their money, they have to come

(48:55):
up with a positive result and agree with it. That's
why ninety five percent of science disagree. Not because of
real science, not because they understand all the things I'm
talking about or include them, not because they do good measurements.
They're making good measurements. They'd have to measure the temperature
of the ocean all around the world, the land masses,

(49:19):
the temperature of big lakes like the Great Lakes or
other great lakes. They'd have to take temperatures at all
altitudes in the atmosphere. Do you think they do this? No, No,
they do very rudimentary measurements, and then they do guess
what the magic word computer simulations. Do you know how

(49:44):
much money has been acquired in grant money because of
computer simulations? Well, you can make that come out just
exactly the way you want it. Yep, that's so people agree. No,
it's just that all the people that disagree got squeezed out.
They couldn't get money. They negative results don't garner grant money.

(50:09):
And then you know, they then they can't publish. They're
not allowed to publish in the peer review journals, which
are controlled by the controlling few that have the grant money.
It's a racket, that's what it is. It's a racket.
It's a it's a it's corruption in science. It's the
only thing you can say about it. That's the best

(50:32):
thing you can say about it. I'm going to switch
gears a little bit here and I'm going to talk
about how the international organizations picked up on this. And
this is so typical where they they watch things they
have they're literally think tanks that spend their time trying

(50:54):
to determine how to manipulate the public thought system and
belief system, and so a lot of times they wait
for a subject to get to gain traction and they go,
uh huh. This climate change thing is r is something
that people will buy into, and it's can be used
as a control mechanism. So that's where the international organizations,

(51:17):
like the UN twenty thirty Agenda or the World Bank,
or the EC World Economic Forums. It I could go
on and on about all of the international agencies you know,
included in the World Health Organization, which is related to
the U the United States agencies for administration of health

(51:42):
related issues. And the original the the original control mechanism
for climate change was water. It was one thing they
wanted to absolutely control, and that is water. Now, if
you can imagine, they're trying to give you the idea

(52:02):
that there's a water shortage on planet Earth and fault
for example, the cows living in Kansas for the lack
of water in say the rainforest of the Amazon. But
the problem is cows drinking water in Kansas is not
going to produce. You can't take that water and move
it over to the Amazon jungle. The whole issue of

(52:30):
weather on planet Earth. I talked about this before and
it's probably the most important aspect of climate change, and
that is that we need far more CO two on
this planet than we currently have. The point oh four
percent is just at the level at which the Earth

(52:56):
is just barely surviving the plant life. I talked about
this for where if you increase double, triple, quadruple, or
many times more co two. It's not going to cause
global warming, it's simply not gonna happen. But what is
going to happen. It's actually going to cool the planet
because it'll expand the growth of plants. And when you

(53:19):
have a greener foliage on planet Earth, then that's absorbing
the sunlight, which is converting it into a carbon based
matter biomass, and that's cooling the Earth. So if you've
ever walked into a forest, you'll notice that it's cooler.

(53:42):
That's because, like on a hot summer day, that's because
the foliage is absorbing the sunlight and converting it into
plant matter. One time I was at some friend's house.
This was it was a hot summer night up in
the Middle West, and this guy goes, hey, listen, and

(54:06):
we're out there was a corn. Every place in the Midwest,
if you're in the country, there's corn nearby. And he said, listen,
and so I'm listening. What does that sound. It sounds
like it sounds like little bugs are eating or some
kind of noise. He goes, that's the corn growing. And
then it was growing so fast that because it had

(54:30):
absorbed all that energy during the daytime from the sun,
that you could hear it growing, and so the plant
life absorbs the energy from the sun and it's actually cooler.
So if you're out in the farm, if you wanted
to cool on the hot summer night, you want to

(54:52):
cool down, you walk out into the cornfield because all
that energy is being absorbed by the plants, and that
would the situation with Earth. It's a it's called positive
feedback that happens in if you're designing electrical circuits. It's
a it's a concept in electricity, it's a concept in
physical processes and chemical process et cetera, where you have

(55:19):
you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and that causes
more plant growth. The plant growth in turn absorbs the
sunlight because now it's growing faster. That causes a better,
a higher rate of photosynthesis. And it's uh, it's basically

(55:40):
capturing the CO two from the atmosphere into the plant
life and it actually cools the plant, cools the planet.
So the cooling effect comes from putting more CO two
into the atmosphere. Okay, so now I want to talk
about sequestering CO two. Something that's going on right now

(56:01):
and people think they're doing something to save the planet.
The same with chemtrails. Like back in let me see,
when was it? Around the year two thousand, I was
on a radio show with the host at the time.
His name was Alex Merklinger, and he's no longer he

(56:24):
went out of the radio business long ago, But it
was at that point I was one of the first
researchers to publicly go on radio back in the days
and talk about this subject. And all of a sudden
was overtaken by what I call Johnny cum Lateley's people,
who even more recently started talking about chemtrails. Okay, well,

(56:49):
the purpose, the seeming purpose of chemtrails is to fog
the planet, basically reflect sunlight and cool the planet down.
But there's some other things going on. Because we found
from testing the residuals from the chemtrails that they had
bury them and aluminum. We knew this in the early

(57:10):
two thousands. But the other issue was that I had
been working with the Russian scientists and we determined that
the source of hurricanes, the source of energy that drives hurricanes,
and determined a way to sequester hurricanes and to guide

(57:34):
them using laser satellites move them away from harm's way.
And then that technology got into the hands of the
US military and they started using it against the public.
The same scientists went to the United Nations, this is
in the early two thousands and requested that a treaty

(57:57):
be written for the for the elimination and identifying these weapons,
these satellite lasers, as weapons of mass destruction because they
could be used to power up hurricanes and cause destruction.
And so the point I'm trying to make is that

(58:17):
there's a lot of issue being given to chemtrails, but
that is not the big issue when it comes to
weather manipulation and weather control. The big issue is the
laser satellites, and it's something that is really pushed off
to the side. Too many people concentrating on chemtrails when

(58:39):
it's not the real high level, dangerous technology for the
manipulation of storms and weather. Okay, well, I hope this
has been informative, and I tell your friends now, I
would expect people to go back and listen to last
week's show and then this week's show in rounding out

(59:02):
the scientific aspects of what we call climate change or
the climate change mythology and what you really have to understand.
But the big issue also is that people can sequester
CO two from the atmosphere. They are doing it and
it's going to cause it's really going to kill the planet.

(59:24):
That's what's going on, and people are doing it with
the best of intentions, mind you. So once again, we'll
talk to you next week.

Speaker 1 (59:37):
This has been Master of Science with host James McKenney.
Join us each week as James will delve into historical
figures such as Nicola Tesla, Albert Einstein, and the great
mathematicians as we explore the history of Man Earth in
our universe as you've never seen it before. Tuesday, seven
pm Eastern, right here on the bulld Brave TV network,

(01:00:01):
powered by B two Studios.