And so… continuing on the same subject of science, and the scientific community, it has indeed been shown, that the laws of the natural world are not constant, but change, and is something that is often brushed aside. I know that it doesn’t necessarily seem of any particular importance, but the little experiment involving crystals would appear to turn common opinion on its head.
When you form a new material using a totally original recipe, at first the production of obtaining crystals from the substance can be fragile and difficult, and the melting point of these crystals are relatively low. However, when identical compounds are then produced also in different parts of the world, they are more readily obtained, and their melting points are higher, showing they become more stable over time, changing until they find a maximum of stability. This is something that those working in industry have always known, new substances change in constitution and stability. Unremarkable, you may say, but something that many in the scientific world choose to ignore, preferring instead existing models.
It’s important I think to draw a distinction between global warming and pollution. Both are of course undesirable, and may well or may not to some degree be connected in one way or another. However, in regards to global earth temperatures, records have only existed for a relatively short period, for about 150 years, and so their usefulness must therefore be taken for what they are, a short snapshot of world history. Nevertheless, when discussing the issue that world temperatures have actually not been rising since the 1990s, the scientific community respond by saying that there are always fluctuations, and their calculations are projected back over millions of years, using not only recorded records, but also research quantified using ice samples drilled from the North Pole, and the findings show the trend of global warming which takes into account the recent cool: and proves beyond doubt that global warming is a man made phenomena!
Notwithstanding this weight of evidence, the fact remains that the laws of nature are not fixed, and are known to change over time, and so logically data calculated from historic ice samples from the North Pole may well not be as reliable as thought, and the complex logarithms and calculations used to project past and future global temperatures could conceivably be wildly flawed and off the mark. The result of which possibly meaning that global warming is not as it is perceived to be – not necessarily meaning its non existence, far from it, but all the same leaving many more questions to be answered.
As I said previously in another musing, Jeremy Kyle’s lie detector always gives us the answer we want to hear, but… if the method used to get the conclusions is not reliable its finding are equally unreliable and not to be trusted. The scientific community risks making an unwelcome parallel; add to the mix a pinch of vested interest and a touch of politics and big business…