Page one describes how the system works in science. It's corrupt to the hilt. Page 2 describes how the financing works. It's cheapskate beyond belief. This page describes group-think. Group-think is a problem everywhere in society, and it takes its own particular form in science.

There could be no clearer and more preposterous example of how group-think occurs than the big bang theory. First, physicists said the universe is 15 billion years old, because it takes 15 billion years for light to get from the most distant galaxies to the telescopes. But they also said everything began with a big bang, because a supposed red shift indicates everything moving away from a central point. Strangely, the earth was near the center, and everything moves away from it. But physicists forgot to add the amount of time it took for the galaxies to get from the center to their present location. If they moved at the speed of light, another 15 billion years would have to be added to the age of the galaxies. If they moved at one tenth the speed of light, another 150 billion years would have to be added.

It took physicists about eighty years to add the additional time it took for galaxies to move from the center point to their present location. After telling the kiddies for decades that the galaxies are 15 billion years old, they couldn't say they missed it by a thousand percent or more. Science is always right; it doesn't mess up the heads of the kiddies. So they said the galaxies got to their present location in almost no time. This means there were no laws of physics while galaxies moved from the big bang to approximately their present locations. Relativity doesn't function that way, nor does Newton's laws.

If the laws of physics didn't apply while galaxies were created, the subject is not physics, it's religion. Yet physicists apply their wares to the first trillionths of a second telling us what occurred. What physics are they applying without relativity or Newton's laws? They contrive with no relationship to science or objective reality.

In this process, the first rule is that scientists are always right; they can never be wrong no matter how absurd being right is. There are also the rules of group-think. One of the rules of group-think is that the subject must be reduced down to the lowest common denominator of the group. The lowest common denominator means that the most irrational and dimwitted slogans must be applied to the subject. This is because any higher degree of rationality is more complex and vulnerable to attack. The most corrupt analysis is the most immune to attack, because irrationality is the most simple analysis. So rational persons get shoved aside and must become subservient to the dimwits.

Openness and accountability are needed to correct the problem of reductionism, where the most irrational analysis prevails over rationality. Openness and accountability allow rational analysis to be linked to the evolved truth which exists throughout society. Evolved truth is powerful. But without openness and accountability, there is no way to link analysis to it. There is no significant openness and accountability within science, because the public will not look and criticize in an open and accountable way.

There are areas of science where individual scientists are not significantly influenced by a group; and then the standards vary with those of the individual scientists. The areas which involve the largest groups of scientists are the most reduced to irrationality by group-think. The most extreme examples include relativity, big bang, carbon dioxide and prions.

The whole global warming alarm, we believe, raises serious issues about the way science functions in the real world, about the political bias of scientists, about censorship within the scientific community itself, about the routine practice of scientists drawing false or inflated conclusions from ambiguous or uncertain data, about the manifest failure of the peer review process, about the extraordinary unwillingness of scientists who have invested time and reputation in a particular theory to consider evidence which directly contradicts it, about the elevation of speculation (models) to the level of solid data, and much else besides.

Science and scientists cannot always rise above the prejudices of their class and of their age. The selection and handling of evidence often reflects these prejudices. The most highly qualified and respected scientists can be blind to obvious deficiencies in a theory, and will be dismissive of evidence when it undermines what they want to believe.