September 19, 2018

Why The Left Loves and Hates Science

Scienticism is science without skepticism. It takes the ideas of science and uses them to create an infallible belief system that gives our lives meaning and dictates how we should live those lives.

In other words, a religion.

Contrary to popular disbelief, a religion doesn’t need a god. It does need some things. A creation myth that explains our lives. An enlightened leadership. The conviction that every person’s actions matter. Redemption, salvation and damnation. Miracles. An imminent apocalypse. A prophesized golden age.

Scientism offers all these things and more. Its creation myths inevitably lead to philosophies about our place in the universe. Its miracles are technological. Its heroes have super powers or spaceships. Global warming is on its way to destroy us. And only recycling and green energy can save us from the climate apocalypse. Its truths are infallible because they are prophesized by PhD’s wielding hockey stick graphs.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Scientism, Encapsulation, Abstraction, Interface at Work

After publishing yesterday’s article on science modeling fraud, we are treated to an example of the process at work. Two Swedish “scientists” are charged with and found guilty of “scientific misconduct” because supposedly one of the scientists intentionally fabricated data and didn’t properly obtain necessary permits to “experiment” on fish. In addition, if you follow this link you will find many comments about the finding that further supports my claims about the brainwashing in place that makes “modeling” so effective. Whether you agree or disagree, try to get beyond that mindset in order to see the political blinders that just seem to persist at all levels and in everything we do.

As to the corrupt modeling process, clearly, it matters not to all those involved, including those offering comments, the topic of the research and if the claims made are factual or not and to what extent the corruption exists. There is little reason anymore to think that fraud and corruption aren’t deeply rooted in a rigged system.

The supposed “results” of this published study claimed that tiny particles of plastics in ocean waters were harmful to fish. Because to the corrupted rigged system, we don’t know if the intent of the research was to falsely provide “evidence” that this plastic existed and the harm it causes to fish for political purposes and monetary gain. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the charges brought against the researchers are not being done for other political purposes or monetary gain.

That’s how terribly corrupt the entire process has become. One person commented that they just assume that all published papers today are rooted in fraud and deception.

Nice!

Share

War On Bad Science? Or Is It A War on Preferred Bad Science?

Arnold says that now, unless he trusts a researcher’s work, he no longer believes the findings of any scientific study until he or someone on the staff carefully vets the paper. “A new study shows …” are “the four most dangerous words,” Arnold wrote on Twitter.

Together with Taubes’ work, Arnold was also reading Ioannidis’ and Gold­acre’s equally devastating analyses. These critiques of science amounted to a deep philosophical quandary for the Arnolds, philanthropists who had dedicated their lives to a data-based approach to giving. “In everything they do, they want to be evidence-driven,” says Stuart Buck, vice president of research integrity at the Arnold Foundation. But if you look at the studies that can’t be reproduced and other issues facing science, “you start to think: What is evidence? What do we actually know?”

The Arnolds had already decided that, with decades of life ahead of them and almost unlimited resources, they had the time and money to evaluate charitable programs properly, even when that meant paying for expensive randomized controlled trials that could take years to complete. But now they were widening their scope. If they wanted to embark on truly “transformational change,” as their foundation literature states, it wouldn’t be enough to properly evaluate this or that education or criminal justice program. They would also have to take on a far more ambitious project: The Arnolds would have to try and fix science itself.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Maine Moose Ticks And the Death of Man-Caused Global Warming

Climate Change, known to anyone with a brain as weather, can have effects on the growth and perpetuation of  Dermacentor albipictus – the moose tick or winter tick. Anthropogenic (man-caused) climate change does not exist and is dying in its tracks, and yet scientists and wildlife managers cling relentlessly to its shoestrings. Perhaps it’s the convenience of always having an excuse for everything that doesn’t go as planned or even for failing to do your job. Just blame it on Climate Change.

Climate Change, which one can only assume is always used in the context of Anthropogenic Climate Change, is 100% based on computer modeling. In other words it is fake. Actual temperature takings worldwide are not only flawed and basically useless information, but they aren’t living up to the hype of “we’re all going to die drown.” And so, the only recourse is to cling to computer modeling because the modeling can be manipulated to achieve the desired results, not necessarily matching reality.

To the honest person, computer modeling is a waste of time. This society is so completely addicted to technology that we fail miserably in learning how to think and observe. If the models don’t give us what we want, we will simply manipulate things until they do. How dire will things become once the entire world is dependent upon Artificial Intelligence, which is frighteningly on our doorstep?

Another example of the failures of computer modeling was reported at Powerline. The big cheeses of Al Gore’s money-making fake anthropogenic Climate Change, are trying to find ways to explain how their computer modeling has miserably failed them. Within the same report, we learn that computer modeling that was used to predict that by the year 2050 the United States would be 100% employing nothing but wind, solar and hydro power, also is failing and scientists are lining up in droves to protest the use and abuse of computer modeling in claiming the high ground on science.

But there’s money in it!

So, how will wildlife managers in Maine and elsewhere around the globe, explain their theoretic messes, once finally the fairy tale of man causing Climate Change is buried? Or will they remain the relic holdovers, forever clinging, bitterly, to their guns and Bibles hockey stick graphs while camped out at the beaches waiting for the water level to rise? (And waiting for cold winters to kill off all the ticks)

Whether it’s moose ticks, Lyme-causing ticks or Aunt Mabel’s lousy tasting homemade jelly, blaming global warming for it is representative of lousy use of a legitimate scientific method. Believing that the science of Anthropogenic Climate Change is “settled” has done the science community a grave disservice.

Once Artificial Intelligence rules the world, everything will be “settled” once and for all.

Share

There Is No Credibility When Talking Moose and Global Warming

It’s just a constant echo chamber! It never ends. Stupid begets stupid and the heritage of ignorance is perpetuated.

Moose in Northern New England are being killed by winter ticks…at least that is part of the reason. So long as fake scientists, along with the tools of the inept media echo chambers keep repeating utter nonsense, there is no hope.

In a recent diatribe from an environmental website, there is a relentless onslaught of how global warming and the existence of man is just screwing everything up. As an example of just plain stupidity, the author tells readers that what destroyed the moose in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont around the turn of the century was unregulated hunting and logging operations: “the moose—nearly disappeared from New England in the 19th century, a result of unregulated hunting and the clearing of forests.”

This statement is immediately followed by this one: “In recent decades, they found ideal habitat among the mechanized logging operations of Maine…. The timber industry provides a constant supply of new tree growth, the animal’s primary food.”

In another recent email I received, someone was quoted to say that warmer winters were a benefit to the deer population in Maine, followed by a statement saying, however, global warming was killing off all the deer in Maine.

There is no credibility. It matters not whether there is full, some or no truth in the points these people are trying to make. When you make such absurd statements that once a Second Grader could pick up on, one must find real difficulty in swallowing any of the rest of the regurgitated offal the media and fake scientists toss out at us.

The short of it all is this. Greed and the perverse worship of animals (worship of the creation over the Creator) demands that wild animals can be viewed regularly from the comfort of ones home or automobiles. An honest scientific application to achieve healthy wildlife populations has taken a back seat to social demands made by ignorant and greedy people unwilling to get outdoors and find the creatures where they are.

With this ingrained into our society, don’t ever expect that things will change…there will continue to be prevalent diseases.

My God! Didn’t we use to learn this stuff in like 3rd Grade?

Share

Senators Move To Protect Scientists From Political Interference

*Editor’s Note* – Well, it sounds like something that should be done….HOWEVER…I just can’t stop laughing.

Press Release from the Democratic News of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) introduced the Scientific Integrity Act, along with more than two dozen Democratic senators, to protect government scientists from political interference. The legislation comes in the wake of recent reports that Trump administration officials had placed gag orders on employees at the EPA.

Science should not be used as a political tool, but rather a search for the truth – the verifiable facts. With truth and fact under siege, now is a particularly dangerous time to be silencing our scientists. This bill will help ensure the public is kept safe and informed, tax dollars are spent most effectively, and our laws and policies are based on accurate, verifiable information,” remarked Sen. Cantwell, a senior member of the Senate’s Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

Politics should not get in the way of sharing factual and independent scientific information, period,” said Sen. Murray. “It is the public’s right to have access to federally funded science and research, and this bill reinforces the critical principle that scientists supporting federal agencies or laboratories should be free from outside influences.”

Among other things, the legislation (S.338) would:

  • Reaffirm the principle of open communication of scientific findings and prevent the suppression of scientific findings;
  • Ensure that scientists are allowed to communicate their findings with the public, press and Congress;
  • Direct federal agencies to develop scientific integrity policies that include whistleblower protections and
  • Require scientific integrity policies to be posted online and given to all new hires.

Since November, more than 5,000 scientists, including many Nobel Prize winners, have signed an open letter urging President Trump and Congress to preserve scientific integrity.

The legislation was led by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and was also joined by Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

###

 

Share

Scientism’s Helpful Echo Chambers

I spent several hours yesterday conducting a deeper, forensic search and examination into what most people would probably consider “scientific” pieces concerning Dermacentor albipictus, or what is most commonly known as the winter tick or a moose tick.

Anyone can do some basic research and discover a few pages of information displayed as conclusions about how the moose (Alces alces) is affected by the winter tick – the most of it being anecdotal evidence. In short, it’s a great example of the modern-day echo chamber that results in dreadful conclusions directed at promoting political agendas and non-scientific balderdash.

If you weed out the obvious and repetitious campfire weenie roasts of those who simply copy and paste someone’s work other than their own, you end up with a small handful of documents most are eager to label as scientific research and scholarship.

An honest approach to the existing pieces of work on winter ticks and moose, will find that the majority of the “research” (I hate to use that term) is geared toward how moose act and react when weighted down with the ticks. Very little is actually written or studied about the tick itself. Too much information written comes from assumptions and speculation.

It’s not that each of these somewhat scientific writings don’t contain useful information but the real problem lies in how to understand what is being written and separating it from the damned nonsense repeated in the media and other echo chambers.

An honest examination of each of these reports shows at least two issues that should prompt a legitimate researcher to, at least, ask some questions. One issue is that, like with most “scientific” papers, preexisting and perhaps precedent-setting conclusions, not necessarily ever challenged or questioned, are readily used by “scientists” to plug into their own work, to make it work, instead of doing their own. Problems abound from this approach even though it has become a readily acceptable form of dishonesty – in effect a bastardization of the scientific process.

The second issue, which leads to the real serious problems of dishonest scholarship, is that we read a lot of “we assume” and “it is believed” and “it could have been” – the list is endless of non specific, unscientifically supported, and troubling nonsense. It appears that these types of “conclusions” are often taken by other scientists, the media, or anyone searching for a narrative to fit their cause, as the gospel and honestly or dishonestly omit any reference to unsubstantiated conclusions.

Examining the text of all these studies, we see often where actual experimentation was given over to assumptions or another researcher’s conclusions, often based upon unproven and untested determinations. In one particular piece of work, the text read that “it was assumed” that the conditions “might have” etc.

In conducting such research, I often look for a common denominator. From there, I try to see if such common themes are the product of echo chambers or conclusions drawn from a person’s own scientific methods and precisely what those methods are. This requires patience and determination.

It appears that, from the few existing scientific papers available on winter ticks and moose, I could assess that each scientist or group of scientists claimed that the biggest factors effecting the viability of winter ticks, either after the engorged female ticks drop off the moose in Spring, during the time the female lays her eggs, or climbing vegetation as hatched new larvae, is weather and habitat. That is weather. They do not say climate. They state weather, and give examples of the kind of weather that can, both negatively and positively, effect the winter tick – wind, humidity, temperatures, dry/drought, etc.

This changing weather effects this tick (Dermacentor albipictus) everywhere that it exists. It is readily found in cold climate areas of Canada and Alaska, as well as in warm climates like Texas.

Echo chambers and those with political agendas, cherry pick incomplete information and dishonest conclusions to repeat the non-scientific nonsense that “Climate Change” is why Maine, and other states, have winter ticks. Odd, as well, is that these same mental midgets of mendacity, seem to have drawn their own conclusions that there are more winter ticks now than ever before. I wonder where they got that from?

We know from historic accounts that moose and winter ticks have been around for a long time. There are reports readily available that give anecdotal evidence of periods of time, from 1900 until present, where large numbers of moose have died off and that it was “believed or assumed” that perhaps the winter tick played a role. What does not exist, is scientific evidence that can tell us if the current level of infestation is greater than, less than, or the same as at any point in history. We simply do not know, but that doesn’t stop the Fake News echo chambers, along with many, many fish and game administrators and their assigns, in perpetuating information that may or may not be true.

Oddly, this attitude and approach puzzles me. What is to be accomplished by insisting on dishonest scientific research? I’m sure, with the brainwashing received in our education factories, few new-age biologists would think that there was anything wrong with simply passing bad information after more bad information, if they are clueless to the quality of the information being dealt with. The trouble is, how does this determine responsible wildlife management that we are told is for the purpose of providing the state with a healthy moose population? One can only think there must be something else behind the action – perhaps job security and perpetuation of political agendas, for surely the interest isn’t focused on the animal.

Maine has had moose long before any of us were around, and along with it has been the winter tick. Maine has had winters before and will continue to have winters. Maine has had “severe” winters and “average” winters. Maine has had “mild” winters. All of these conditions persisted over time and will persist into the future. Pulling the “Climate Change” card is too easy and convenient.

We know that the theory of man-caused climate change cannot and will not be proven. Therefore, it just seems a far too convenient an excuse for anything and everything,  providing the lazy scientist with a prostituted answer requiring no work.

I doubt there is little any biologist can do to mitigate the weather and how it will affect the survivability of the winter tick. If scientists would just get off this dead-end road that leads to global warming, perhaps, once again, some sensible scientific research could be put into place again.

I’m not holding my breath.

Share

Recognition of a “Fiery Destruction” That “Ruin the Bulk of Humanity”

*Editor’s Note* – I find it fascinating that over 150 years ago, some men determined to cling to the truth that you cannot separate divine creation from the worldly pursuits of science and philosophy. The author recognizes that the “subtleties” coming from the “fiery decomposition and destruction” found “below the concrete world” have caused “scientific men” to allow themselves to “sink down to the idea that science and philosophy have only to do with dead and beggarly elements of the world.” It is but tragic and still we hear, “The science is settled.” Now we gain understanding as to why man-god’s science is settled.

“Were it not that this work is avowedly astronomical and philosophical, it could easily be shown here that far above the sun, moon, and stars, and beyond the region of electric, magnetic, and other active subtleties, there is a fountain, an infinite conservatory of realities, as much more subtle than electric and magnetic entities, as these are than, the solid elements of the earth; and from which man receives all that makes him better than a demon, and enables and helps him to a god-like existence, whilst below the concrete world of earth and water, a region of fiery decomposition and destruction exists, and whence originate realities–subtleties more subtle than gaseous and electric elements, and which pollute and ruin the great bulk of humanity. The author is inexpressibly sorry to leave this mighty subject undeveloped in the pages of this work. He has entered upon a scientific disquisition, and as scientific men in general have allowed themselves to sink down to the idea that science and philosophy have only to do with the dead and beggarly elements of the world, and that all inquiries into the nature and source of the quickening, ennobling, and perfecting subtleties, which can be proved to exist, are but the dictates of superstition, he will not pursue the subject further–in these pages at least–lest the scientific critics who dread the advent of true and vivifying philosophy should charge him with inconsistency or unwarrantable digression.”

Zetetic Astronomy – Earth Not a Globe – An experimental inquiry into the True Figure of the Earth – Samuel Birley Rowbotham – 1881 – Third Edition – Pgs 155-156

Share

Scientific Consensus is Fraud

Recently I shared with readers an article I found called, “Big Science is Broken.” As sometimes Media does, perhaps more articles are being written about the flaws of scientific “study” and “peer review,” sold to the public as “settled science” or “consensus science.” Both of those elements are dangerously fraudulent.

Today, “How ‘Settled Science’ Helped Create a Massive Public Health Crisis,” tells us that consensus in fraudulent, politically manipulated, people control, masquerading as science, can literally kill us.

The article states: “Leslie correctly points out that, despite the patina of pure objectivity, “scientific inquiry is prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding toward majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error.”

While that statement may be true, it is more of the gas for the vehicle intended to get the human population from Point A, a healthy lifestyle, to Point B, death.

We should cease with dancing around excuses as to why fraudulent science is killing us. Not everyone is that stupid, but unfortunately because, as the article states, social life, deference to the charismatic, herding, punishment, etc., are the known factors bred into human character that allows the Ruling Establishment, whose bent is massive elimination of millions of people, to carry out their plans.

When the Media focuses on issues that only scratch the surface, nothing is ever accomplished, except what most of us refuse to understand – that Media’s role in this is the perpetuation of the social life, deference to the charismatic, herding (brainwashing/propagandizing), and implementing punishments for non conformance. Anyone paying attention should realize that it has only been a matter of time that “science” tells us one thing, and “science” tells us they were wrong. We want to believe, and do believe, that the “correction” has delivered the truth, and yet it never is the truth…only more lies. It’s commonly referred to as insanity and we are too insane to recognize it.

The once-known “scientific method” exists, somewhere, but is rarely seen anymore. It has been replaced, by design, with everything, and more, that is described in the two linked-to articles above. Lost in all of it, is the truth that the lost method is being perpetrated on us by design and the bigger goal isn’t a healthier lifestyle. It is death by self-inflicted adherence to what some brainwashed quack is telling us to do.

Isaiah 53:6 – All we like sheep have gone astray: we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all.

Share

The Hocus-Pocus of Estimating Deer Harvest….or Something

I recall at a very young age learning the true meaning of the word “assume.” For those not fortunate to have had such a high degree of education, let me help you out – ASSUME = ASS(out of)U(and)ME. Yup! That’s what often happens.

I was reading an article just a few minutes ago by someone trying to explain why the methods of guessing deer numbers and harvest were “good enough.” Here’s what I giggled at in the article: “Say we flip a coin ten times. We know that the chances of getting heads is 50%, but just ten flips may not show that. The more sets of ten coin flips we do, the closer we get to the 50% – to a point. But there also reaches a point where it doesn’t matter if we flip the coin 1,000 times or a million, either way, we will be very close to 50%. The same logic comes to the amount of data on deer harvest we need to collect to accurately illustrate the statewide harvest numbers. Knowing that point, is where the complexities of statistics come in, but be rest assured that they are reliable.”

Perhaps it is “good enough” to flip coins and make assumptions, while disregarding other influencing circumstances, when guessing on deer populations as well as how many deer were harvested. Those who buy into the “good enough” scheme also buy into the idea described above that there’s always a 50-50 chance when flipping a penny a few million times. Actually, it might be more accurate to say the odds are 51-49, but even that estimate can be flawed. What mint of penny is being used? Is it the same penny all the time? Is the coin dirty? Etc.

Science is science – is it not? Yeah, I know. Not for everybody. It’s more exciting to just “assume,” as the article says that regardless of how many times you flip a coin, half the time it’s heads, the other half, tails. This is, of course “assuming” it’s always the same coin, always clean, with no irregularities, flipped by a calibrated machine, the same number of flips, in a vacuum, blah, blah, blah.

Odds are odd. Do we “assume” that with the millions of deer in this country that half the new-born fawns will be male and half female? Yup! (Unless you are one of those that believes there are no bucks left) But scientists tell us that it’s closer to 51-49. It matters not which sex wins….or does it. What causes the skew? Is it man’s influence? Is it 100% natural? If that’s an average, what are the extremes in those birth rates and what causes them? A lot of questions, I know, but, but, but….

When a scientist begins his work to seek an outcome, isn’t the work already flawed once the scientist “assumes” the odds are 50-50? Throughout a scientific progression, the more times “assumptions” are made, it probably is accurate to “assume” there are more errors rendering the results less accurate. The first assumption might be “good enough,” but for whom?

So, does any of this matter when it comes to managing and establishing deer management programs? Mostly likely not. Does it matter if this same “assuming” approach is used in areas where there are but 10,000 estimated deer versus those with 500,000 or more? Do managers continue, for years and years, to make the same “assumptions?” If changes are made to the methods, is it “assumed” that it will not effect the outcome?

Has anyone spent the time to determine what the “odds” are in making “assumptions”, that those “assumptions” are skewing reality in any one direction more than another? If there are “assumed” outcomes in two directions, is it “assumed” that half the time it’s one way and half the time the other? I assume you have had just about enough of this gibberish.

Seems silly doesn’t it? One of the problems with this method of making assumptions, is that it really is the beginning stages of outcome-based political manipulation disguised as science – I mean, honestly, isn’t it? That 50-50 odds for coin flipping is perfect for politics, but is worthless when dealing in scientific terms.

There are certain things deer biologists can do that will improve the results of their guessing. And that’s good enough…evidently. However, one of those things should be a scientific-based survey to right the ship and get it reconnoitered and back on course. That works better than relying, always, on a coin flip. After all, it takes a person to flip the coin and somehow I have little faith in the direction of the wind or the Flim-Flam Man.

TaleANumber

Share