Science is a great discipline
and deserves many of its laurels. However, it is folly to believe
science is always correct, that the scientific method is always applied
properly, that all scientists are honest/ethical and the outcomes of
scientific efforts are proof positive representing truth for all time.
History is replete with examples of scientific claims of
established proofs that later proved wrong. Today so much of science
has been turned into tools elitists and governments use to manipulate
people for political or financial gain. The items in this note serve to
illustrate the point. As always I understand time is precious. Scan
the items provided to find those of interest to you.
What? I thought the President,
the Pope, the UN, Al Gore, and certain scientists were telling us that
we are facing a global warming catastrophe. Now some scientists are
telling us that by 2030 the sun will go to sleep and we may enter
into an ice age. Quote: "The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned. A
new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says
that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out. This,
they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' -
which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between
1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
We all know about the debate between those who claim man is largely responsible for global warming/climate change and those who are skeptical of such claims. This item is worthy of consideration by both sides of the argument. Quote: "Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html?
We all know about the debate between those who claim man is largely responsible for global warming/climate change and those who are skeptical of such claims. This item is worthy of consideration by both sides of the argument. Quote: "Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html?
This item adds to that above. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/commenters_excoriate_a_emscienceem_paper_that_denies_global_warming_pause.html
Bad science equals bad models. Quote: "Greenpeace denies the settled science that bad forecasts mean incorrect theories. Don’t let them change the subject. This is not about some false accusation of conflict of interest. This is about bad science passing for good because it’s politically expedient." http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/02/23/left-panics-over-peer-reviewed-climate-papers-threat-to-global-warming-alarmism/
And where does this bad science lead? This item provides at least a
part of the answer by revealing the political motives consequential from
bad science. http://www.cfact.org/2015/06/11/bonn-update-loss-and-damage-climate-reparation-insurance/?
This Nobel laureate tells President Obama that he is “dead wrong” on global warming. Ivar Giaever,
a scientist who shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, challenged Mr.
Obama in a July 1 speech at the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in
Lindau, Germany." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/7/nobel-physicist-obama-dead-wrong-global-warming/#ixzz3fL2KwRFS
This is one way to win an argument. Force skeptics to not investigate. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/prominent_australian_scientists_seek_to_block_parliamentary_investigation_into_the_evidence_for_anthropogenic_global_warming.html
A couple of quotes highlight the theme of this piece. Quote:
"By the way, the field of science is not the objective discipline that
many people make it out to be as Horace Freeland Judson points out in
his book The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science. Also take a look at Climate Confusion (Roy W. Spencer) and Big Fat Liars: How Politicians, Corporations, and the Media Use Science and Statistics to Manipulate the Public (Morris
E. Chafetz)." and "Most of the anti-science charge relates to
man-made global warming now called “climate change” since the
“there-is-no-longer-any-debate-about-global-warming” claim has fizzled.
Research on this subject will show that scientists were convinced in the
1970s that global cooling was inevitable, and if you denied it you were – you guessed it – anti-science." http://godfatherpolitics.com/21025/homosexuality-should-be-rejected-because-its-anti-science/This item examines the faulty science that led to the giant expansion of psychiatric drugs. Studies now suggest they either do little but more likely do harm. Quote: "Depression and other mental health problems are at epidemic levels judging by the number of antidepressants prescribed each year. According to CDC data,1 one in 20 Americans over the age of 12 report some form of depression, and 11 percent of the US population over the age of 12 is on antidepressant medication.2 This despite overwhelming evidence showing that antidepressants do not work as advertised." And, "The Low Serotonin Theory Was Never Proven True, Yet Spawned a Booming Market of SSRIs." https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/joseph-mercola/antidepressants-dont-work-as-advertised/
Here's what the US's most advanced climate station has to offer in the way of data over the past 10 years. It finds that we are in a 10 year cooling cycle. http://spectator.org/blog/63087/america’s-most-advanced-climate-station-data-shows-us-10-year-cooling-trend And, http://www.libertynewsnow.com/global-warming-fake-usa-in-tenth-year-of-cooling-trend/article1617
This should sadden anyone who wants to trust what scientists do and say. http://www.libertynewsnow.com/how-did-they-prove-global-warming-is-real-this-time/article1685 And if what this item suggests is true it suggests nefarious government scientific activities in the CIA. http://www.thealternativedaily.com/alerts/coconutoilsecret/clickspecial.php
The Catholic Pope has adopted
the liberal/progressive stance on climate change - my way or the
highway. His encyclical, "...sets up a situation where Pope Francis
invites dialog but only invites dialog on his terms. You can enter the
debate IF you agree there is a crisis and IF you rule out technology as a
means of solving the problem. Otherwise you are part of the problem.
This is just nuts. It enslaves the outcome to a set of predictions that
are highly debatable and rules out any solution other than the one that
is pre-ordained. No one is denying that there are areas of the world
that have experienced extensive environmental degradation, but this
shotgun blast that takes local problems and rolls them into a ball and
calls them a global crisis is crazy." As noted in the piece Pope
Francis is the first Pope since 1663 when "...Pope Urban VIII sided with
the “scientific consensus” and had the heliocentric observations of
Galileo anathemized. That marks, as far as I can tell, the last
intervention of the Catholic Church in science. Indeed, Catholic
scientists such as Louis Pasteur, the Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel,
the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître were on the cutting edge of
science. That is, until today." http://www.redstate.com/2015/06/18/environmental-encyclical-assault-faith-reason/
Scientific consensus was wrong in 1663 and it is wrong today. This
Pope will ultimately regret repeating Pope Urban VIII's mistake. Here
is a cogent opinion piece that points out the blatant hypocrisy of the
whole thing. http://spectator.org/articles/63139/pope-keeps-faith-climate-change
There is little doubt that the EPA both wastes taxpayer money and pursues dubious scientific efforts. It is in bad need of having its wings clipped. Check out this piece. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/18/epa-grants-given-to-outside-science-advisers-while/
You might find this item quite interesting. Quote: "The bible of the psychiatric profession, the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), published by the American Psychiatric Association, is now in its 5th edition. It lists some 300 official mental disorders by name, as well as the criteria which allow licensed psychiatrists to diagnose these disorders in patients. And yet, in the DSM, there is not one defining laboratory test for any of those 300 disorders. No blood test, no urine test, no antibody test, no brain scan, no genetic assay. This is supposed to be a science. But there are no defining tests. Instead, there are groupings and clusters of behaviors, which committees of psychiatrists have decided constitute specific mental disorders." https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/the-devious-matrix-called-psychiatry/
To
this we might add that filling troubled mines with even more troubled
prescribed poisons is one of the constants associated with tragedies
such as the recent murders by a troubled young man in Charleston, SC.
Instead of listening to the rants by those who wish to decimate the
Second Amendment, we need to examine with great care why prescribed
poisons with well known estructive side effects are allowed but guns
demonized. Quote: "It is a well-documented fact that in the 1980s, a
shift occurred in the direction of treating the mentally ill. Rather
than institutionalize them, the preferred method was to “mainstream”
them, encouraging them to function in society while being treated with a
mind-numbing array of new anti-depressants being developed by the
pharmaceutical industry." And, "Other drugs linked to mass killers have
more often been geared toward treating mental illness. According to a
data set of U.S. mass shootings from 1982-2012 prepared by Mother Jones
magazine, of 62 mass shootings carried out by 64 shooters, the majority
of the shooters (41) were noted to have signs of possible mental illness
— the precise kinds of mental illnesses that psychotropic medications
are prescribed for." See the disconnect? https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/no_author/the-big-list-of-drug-induced-killers/
Given that the history of global temperatures over the past several years point to cooling more than heating, this piece examines the subject. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/protecting_humanity_from_ice_ages.html
Quote: "The sun is known to be the main driver of all weather and climate. With 99.86% of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of violent fire in the sky has recently gone quiet in what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century and actually flatlined in recent days. Weak solar cycles, like the current one, have been associated with benign “space weather” that can cause a “Little Ice Age.” http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/05/hello_al_gore_low_sun_spot_cycle_could_mean_another_little_ice_age.html
Quote: "Temperature readings from the Arctic and Antarctic used to estimate the effects of global warming are nothing more than guesswork, a climate researcher has said. Dr Benny Peiser heads up the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which last month announced its intention to launch a wide-ranging review of the data underpinning claims on global warming." http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/15/polar-temperature-recordings-proving-climate-change-nothing-more-than-a-guess/
This is a case of follow the climate change money trail. You may be surprised by what you learn. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne This item suggests that lessons learned in Europe should be applied here in the US. http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/17/europes-climate-policies-serve-as-a-warning-to-the-u-s/?
Fossil fuels are beating renewables in a big way. This item explains. http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/08/the-death-of-the-green-energy-movement/?
Logic is more powerful than propaganda. The problem is that logic is not taught in schools across the country. Propaganda is taught and absent a foundation in logic, propaganda wins the argument. https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/propaganda-is-the-art-of-overwhelming-logic/
Cholesterol has long been vilified as being bad for us, a killer. Now science says it is okay. This item offers us a lesson in the folly of claiming that any area of science is ever settled. Quote: "So what does this mean? Can we simply ignore all recommendations and findings from the scientific community? Of course not. But it should give us a warning against taking studies – no matter how stringently repeated or promoted – as fact. Let science provide us with guidelines, discussions, and ideas. Let it move us forward in the areas of technology, health, and even climate. But let’s not forget that today’s best science could easily be tomorrow’s regrettable joke. Nothing is set in stone." http://www.leanrightamerica.org/uncategorized/science-never-settled-cholesterol-now-ok/
This item adds to the folly that medical science is always right. And, it illustrates that when medical science and government join hands things can escalate to rendering mandated harm. The evidence is unquestionably clear that this is the case. https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/a-totalitarian-society-has-totalitarian-science/
These items cover some of the history of measles in America and how the medical profession has handled public information. You may not agree but what is presented is hard to refute given sourcing. https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/what-sharyl-attkisson-told-me-about-vaccines/ More about vaccines. https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/measles-outbreak-13-reasons-to-reject-the-hype/ And more. https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/02/15/fake-disney-measles-outbreak-send-in-the-clowns/ And yet more. http://www.naturalnews.com/048972_vaccine_safety_mainstream_media_Lance_Armstrong.html
The whole area of homosexuality vs heterosexuality is a confusing and unsettled mess. This item offers a review of scientific data based on studies examining a variety of aspects of the respective issues. It is safe to say the science in this matter is certainly not settled. Legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate abound. Quote: "Here is compiled data from a variety of sources including pro-homosexual and independent scientific sources that show that “LGBT” is a fictitious socio-political identity, and information leading into where we are today….addressing the claim that change therapy doesn’t work and/or is harmful." Extensive citing of respective sources is included. http://libertyalliance.com/change-scientific-data-testimonies-gay-activists-wont-tell/
Al Gore claims that climate change deniers should be punished. Given facts readily available such a charge is ludicrous on its face. Punished? How, for what and on what authority? Punish people for disagreeing with him? Is he and his faulty belief beyond challenge? What audacity he displays. His belief in manmade climate change is increasingly under fire, all of his dire predictions have failed to materialize and his current claims that those who not agree with him deserve punishment all suggest he is a huckster. The faithful believe in him but his dubious record speaks for itself. Should he be punished? No, but it is a matter of record that he has made himself extraordinarily wealthy using climate change as the means all at the expense of average people. To me that is everything anyone needs to know about him. http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16/al-gore-sxsw-punish-climate-deniers/
Ineptiude, poor oversight, lack of a sense of urgency, etc. cause problems and harms people (even death) as this item illustrates. http://www.westernjournalism.com/fda-implicated-new-super-bug-outbreak/?
This is a critique of current day science and its application in analysis of the World Trade Center tragedy. It serves to illustrate that maybe more rigorous scientific analysis is necessary before the matter is finally put to rest. The case made, seems to me, is pretty strong. Judge for yourself. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/science-died-wtc.html
George Burns
No comments:
Post a Comment