Gallery

Dennis Prager YouTube video: Left wing Ideology, Climate activists exposed as Junk Science

This gallery contains 2 photos.

Scientific Method vs. Abuse of Power— Dennis Prager YouTube video: Left wing Ideology, Climate activists exposed as Junk Science Top climate scientist breaks ranks with ‘consensus’ ‘Our models are Mickey-Mouse mockeries of the real world’ A group of 500 scientists … Continue reading

Corruption in Education: Flat Earth Theory revives Medieval Times Junk Science in Millennial Generation

Corruption in Education:

Flat Earth Theory revives Medieval Times Junk Science  in Millennial Generation

Flat Earth Belief Proves That Millennials Are A Lost Generation

By Andrew West

Forgiveness is a gift that any American can give to a fellow countryman, but forgiveness for ignorance just doesn’t seem to be in our DNA.

When it comes to conspiracy theories, forgiveness seems to always be in the offing.  Those who immediately jumped into tinfoil hat territory after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 were considered perverse and uncouth cretins of the young internet age.  Years later, the prevalence of even more absurd ideas would see the young men somewhat exonerated.

And, even though I haven’t the foggiest as to any specific situation in the case of the assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr., there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that similar cycles of ridiculousness and forgiveness occurred then.

Flat Earth Theory

The most recent of the oddball ideas to gain traction in pop culture has been something call “flat earth theory“.

Modern flat Earth hypotheses originated with the English writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884). Based on conclusions derived from the Bedford Level experiment, Rowbotham published a pamphlet Zetetic Astronomy. He later expanded into a book Earth Not a Globe, proposing the Earth is a flat disc centered at the North Pole and bounded along its southern edge by a wall of ice, Antarctica. Rowbotham further held that the Sun and Moon were 3,000 miles (4,800 km) above Earth and that the “cosmos” was 3,100 miles (5,000 km) above the Earth.[2] He also published a leaflet titled The inconsistency of Modern Astronomy and its Opposition to the Scriptures, which argued that the “Bible, alongside our senses, supported the idea that the earth was flat and immovable and this essential truth should not be set aside for a system based solely on human conjecture”.[6]

Pseudoscience

Rowbotham and followers like William Carpenter gained attention by successful use of pseudoscience in public debates with leading scientists such as Alfred Russel Wallace.[7][8][9] Rowbotham created a Zetetic Society in England and New York, shipping over a thousand copies of Zetetic Astronomy.

It sounds absurd because, well, it is absurd.  Despite all of our time in space, and our scientific abilities to  measure the planet, these “flat earthers” insist that there is a massive coverup occurring…for some reason.

What’s worse still:  An inordinate number of millennials are being suckered by these science-denying delinquents.

A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round. The national poll reveals that 18 to 24-year-olds are the largest group in the country who refuse to accept the scientific facts of the world’s shape.

YouGov, a British market research firm, polled 8,215 adults in the United States to find out if they ever believed in the “flat Earth” movement. Only 66 percent of young millennials answered that they “always believe the world is round.” Science teachers across the U.S. will be shaking their heads after learning that nine percent of young adults answered that they have “always believed” the planet was flat.

 

https://constitution.com/flat-earth-belief-proves-that-millennials-are-a-lost-generation/

 

History Facts: Predictions on Climate Change proven False; Global Warming Hoax has Origin in Nazi Germany

History Facts:

Predictions on Climate Change proven False; Global Warming Hoax has Origin in Nazi Germany

O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it. ~Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:3-4

 

Here’s How Wrong Past Predictions on Climate Change Have Been

Walter E. Williams

Daily Signal, Heritage Foundation

Each year, Earth Day is accompanied by predictions of doom.

Let’s take a look at past predictions to determine just how much confidence we can have in today’s environmentalists’ predictions.

Earth Day  Predictions in 1970: Death of 100-200 Million People

In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and best-selling author of “The Population Bomb,” declared that the world’s population would soon outstrip food supplies.

In an article for The Progressive, he predicted, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”

He gave this warning in 1969 to Britain’s Institute of Biology: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

On the first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned, “In 10 years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

Despite such predictions, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ highest award.

1975: New Ice Age Predicted

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoon

In International Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”

In Science News (1975), C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization is reported as saying, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience:

The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.

2000: Earth will burn up from Global Warming

In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

In the following years, the U.K. saw some of its largest snowfalls and lowest temperatures since records started being kept in 1914.

Extinction of Animal Life

Also in 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., wrote in Look magazine: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian (Institution), believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

” Gold and Silver to Disappear”

Scientist Harrison Brown published a chart in Scientific American that year estimating that mankind would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver were to disappear before 1990.

Erroneous predictions didn’t start with Earth Day.

” Oil and Natural Gas Depleted”

In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.

The fact of the matter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is that as of 2014, we had 2.47 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, which should last about a century.

Dishonesty—the End Justifies the Means

Hoodwinking Americans is part of the environmentalist agenda. Environmental activist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989:

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

In 1988, then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Americans have paid a steep price for buying into environmental deception and lies.

Global Warming Hoax has Origin in Nazi Germany

Revealed – How Renewables and the Global Warming Industry Are Literally Hitler

James Delingpole

Nazi vision of windmill

Have you ever wondered what kind of sadistic, totalitarian mentality you might need to want to carpet the countryside with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes in order to save the planet from an imaginary problem?

This book, unearthed by David Archibald at American Thinker, offers a clue: Unfortunately, Archibald reports, the scheme foundered for practical reasons. Just one of these towers would have required 27,500 tons of steel – “approaching the amount used in the Scharnhorst.” So the Germans put their renewable energy drive on hold in 1936. It was, of course, revived five decades later in their Energiewende – an ingenious scheme to replace fossil fuels with energy powered by wind and the sun in which Germany is so abundant sometimes for as many as two or three days each year.

But Nazi Germany’s contributions to the modern climate change industry did not stop with gigantic wind turbines. No. One of the earliest proponents of man-made global warming theory was none other than the Luftwaffe High Command’s chief meteorologist Hermann Flohn.

To be fair, some of us have been well aware for quite some time of the green movement’s connections with Nazi Germany: Himmler’s embrace of organic food; Hitler’s partial vegetarianism; Goering threatening to send animal abusers to the death camps; agricultural minister Richard Darre’s obsession with “Blood and Soil”; the ban on smoking on public transport; the Reich Nature Protection Law; etc. (I wrote about this in Watermelons)

Who the Real Nazis Are

After all, people on the conservative/skeptical side of the argument are far too often being accused by ignorant leftists of being literally Hitler. And I do think it’s important, every now and again, to remind these historical illiterates who the real Nazis are.

Delingpole: Revealed – How Renewables and the Global Warming Industry Are Literally Hitler

 

Science Facts: Most Global Warming is Junk Science, no Scientific Method used

Science Facts:

Most Global Warming is Junk Science, no Scientific Method used

Study: <1% Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Allum Bokhari

 

When I was in college 40 years ago, all science was conducted using the scientific method. It was a matter of integrity. Now everything is based on political opinion. Most so-called scientists don’t even know what the scientific method is. ~C.D

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong.

Professor Armstrong, who co-founded the peer-reviewed Journal of Forecasting in 1982 and the International Journal of Forecasting in 1985, made the claim in a presentation about what he considers to be “alarmism” from forecasters over man-made climate change.

“We also go through journals and rate how well they conform to the scientific method. I used to think that maybe 10 percent of papers in my field … were maybe useful. Now it looks like maybe, one tenth of one percent follow the scientific method” said Armstrong in his presentation, which can be watched in full below. “People just don’t do it.”

Armstrong defined eight criteria for compliance with the scientific method, including full disclosure of methods, data, and other reliable information, conclusions that are consistent with the evidence, valid and simple methods, and valid and reliable data.

8 Criteria for Scientific Method (Empiricism)

Digging deeper into their motivations, Armstrong pointed to the wealth of incentives for publishing papers with politically convenient rather than scientific conclusions.

“They’re rewarded for doing non-scientific research. One of my favourite examples is testing statistical significance – that’s invalid. It’s been over 100 years we’ve been fighting the fight against that. Even its inventor thought it wasn’t going to amount to anything. You can be rewarded then, for following an invalid [method].”

They Cheat

“They cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want.”

“My big thing is advocacy. People are asked to come up with certain answers, and in our whole field that’s been a general movement ever since I’ve been here, and it just gets worse every year. And the reason is funded research.”

“I’ve [gone through] my whole career, with lots of publications, and I’ve never gotten a research grant. And I’m proud of that now.”

Armstrong concluded his talk by arguing that scientific evidence should be required for all climate regulations.

Why?

According to Armstrong, very little of the forecasting in climate change debate adheres to these criteria. “For example, for disclosure, we were working on polar bear [population] forecasts, and we were asked to review the government’s polar bear forecast. We asked, ‘could you send us the data’ and they said ‘No’… So we had to do it without knowing what the data were.”

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.’”

Culture Wars: Junk Science vs. the Creator, Intelligent Design

Culture Wars:

Junk Science vs. the Creator

keyoldSurely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay. But behold, I will show unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works. For shall the work say of him that made it, he made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he had no understanding? ~Isaiah 29:27

Intelligent Design sans designer?

Carolyn Reeves

American Family Association Journal

Junk Science’s unreasonable allergy to the Creator

creation-pottery2June 2016 – This is not the first time the mere mention of Creator in a scientific article, class, or other public forum has created an uproar. An article entitled “Biomechanical characteristics of hand coordination in grasping activities of daily living” was published in the online scientific journal PLOS ONE in January 2016. The authors wrote about how human hands have an amazing ability to grasp things and perform a multitude of other coordinated tasks.

In the article, hands were said to have the “proper design by the Creator.” If the article had said that hands had been properly designed by Nature, there would have been no objections. But because of the use of the word Creator, there was a flood of complaints as many furious readers called, emailed, and tweeted their criticisms. Some called for the editor to be fired while others demanded that the article be immediately retracted. Some even thought PLOS ONE itself should be shut down or boycotted.

PLOS ONE reacted quickly to retract the article and apologized for the “inappropriate language.” The authors of the article also apologized and blamed the offending language on the fact that English was not their primary language.

On the other side, perplexed Christians who read about the raucous debate were thinking Of course human hands are designed by the Creator, as are our eyes, our brains, our hearts, and every other part of our bodies. Why is saying that hands are the proper design by the Creator offensive to PLOS ONE readers? Why is the idea of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer out of bounds in scientific discussions?

The answer is that the authors violated a “rule” that all science must be explained in terms of natural processes, and anything supernatural is outside the realm of science.

creationhandsDuring the Scientific Revolution, early scientists working in the field of operational science limited their scientific explanations to natural processes because they were studying in real time how, why, or what happens in nature. Later, the field of historical sciences (which included Darwinian evolution) began to gain prominence. Assuming that origins could be explained naturalistically, evolutionists also chose to limit their attempts to reconstruct the past to natural processes. However, the very real possibility of an intelligent cause or a Creator was eliminated because all fields of science had been defined so that only natural processes were considered scientific.

Thus, when the word Creator showed up in a scientific journal, scientists who believed that only natural processes were allowed in science reacted as if science itself might be about to collapse. The same frantic reaction is often seen by some national science organizations when public schools consider including evidence that living things are the result of intelligence and design. Words like planned and purposeful elicit the same kinds of response, because Darwinian evolution requires random, unguided natural events.

Darwinian evolutionists would never promote outright atheism in public schools because schools are required by law to be religiously neutral. Nevertheless, the leaders of some national science organizations have come to staunchly limit science to explanations that are based only on natural processes. So, influenced by naturalistic Darwinian evolution, many students wonder if God is either false or irrelevant.

Basic Darwinian explanations for our origins are based only on unguided natural processes, while a designed, purposeful, supernatural creation is not a consideration in science. In responding to this, Christians should carefully consider Romans 1:18-20, which tells us that humans cannot not know that God, the Creator, made everything. Furthermore, suppressing this truth is a great wickedness in God’s sight.