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

Scientific Facts: Evolutionary Theory Debunked—again; Truth About Climate Change; Truth About Drugs, Legalized Pot in Colorado

Scientific Facts:

Evolutionary Theory Debunked—again

Oops! Scientific retraction a major blow to evolutionary theory

Experts admit they were ‘totally blinded by our belief’

Biblical Worldview. The more honest research that scientists do, the more it confirms Intelligent Design. Truth Matters.~C.D.

It was heralded as decisive proof of the theory of evolution. But Harvard biologist and Nobel Prize laureate Jack Szostak now has retracted a major paper that claimed to explain one of the most important questions about the origin of human life.

In 2016, Szostak published a paper claiming he had found a way for ribonucleic acid (RNA) to replicate itself.

Many proponents of evolutionary theory believe RNA was one of the first molecules to develop. However, RNA requires its own enzymes to replicate.

Szostak and others were looking for evidence of “non-enzymatic replication of RNA,” which could supposedly assemble by irradiating materials that would have been present on Earth in an earlier time.

Find the REAL story at the WND Superstore, in “Eden to Evil,” “Biblical Creationism,” “Kent Hovind’s Creation Seminar,” “In Six Days,” “Scientific Creationism” and more.

If this could be created, it would show RNA could copy itself and could have evolved before DNA or proteins, bolstering the naturalistic explanation of life’s origins.

However, Szostak recently retracted his paper after colleague Tivoli Olsen couldn’t replicate the findings. Szostak said the debacle was “definitely embarrassing.”

Scientific Method Neglected

“In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings] … we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been (and as Tivoli was) in interpreting these experiments,” Szostak told the publication Retraction Watch.

http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/oops-scientific-retraction-a-major-blow-to-evolution-theory/

 

Truth about Climate Change:

Forest Fires and Climate Change policies

Rush Limbaugh

About those forest fires. One other quick observation about this. You may be shocked to learn that a state like Georgia is more densely forested than California. I’m not talking about total acreage. I’m talking about forestation per acre. Here’s the difference. In Georgia, where they have much more forestation as a percentage of the state than in California, do you ever hear about these fires? Very rarely.

Do you ever see scenes from Georgia or other southeastern states with — fly over some of these states, you can’t even see the roads beneath them, the forests are so thick, including in upstate New York, it’s incredible. You wonder how whatever’s below the forest ever gets any sunlight. It’s thick as hell. You know what the difference is? In Georgia and a lot of places the southeast, most of that is privately owned. (interruption) What? No, it’s not rainfall.

It’s private ownership versus state ownership.

In California the state owns it and you’ve got idiots thinking that it is against nature to clear out deadwood, which is timber for fires, kindling. If you have wackos who think doing anything to prevent fires from spreading or growing or even starting is a violation of nature, well, then I’m sorry, you’re cooking your own goose.

But privately owned land, the people that own that land have a much greater sense of worth and value. They protect it, they clear it, they take the stuff out of it that could cause a fire to spread if it starts. None of that happens in California because they’re run by a bunch of left-wing lunatics. And so when these fires start out there, coupled with the Santa Ana winds, when they happen, much of this forestation is literal kindling wood because they’re not allowed to clear it out. It’s considered a violation.

In some of these western states, the leftists, the environmentalists don’t even want you putting out a fire because that’s artificial. A fire starts, it’s natural. What burns is natural. The more it burns, the better for the stupid climate change agenda that they’ve got. Then you couple that with a governor telling people that live there, “Sorry. New normal. Can’t do anything about it. Climate Change.” People that vote for people like that deserve to be paying higher taxes because of the stupidity, if you ask me.

If Global Warming Were Science, It Wouldn’t Need a PR Campaign

 

Truth About Drugs:

Stoned: How Colorado’s 5 Years of Legalized Pot Is ‘Devastating Communities’

Dale Hurd

CBN

This week marks the fifth anniversary of Colorado’s legalization of the commercial marijuana trade, and the reviews aren’t good.

An editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette reports, “Five years of retail pot coincide with five years of a homelessness growth rate that ranks among the highest rates in the country. Directors of homeless shelters, and people who live on the streets, tell us homeless substance abusers migrate here for easy access to pot.”

The paper says, “Five years of Big Marijuana ushered in a doubling in the number of drivers involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for marijuana, based on research by the pro-legalization Denver Post. Five years of commercial pot have been five years of more marijuana in schools than teachers and administrators ever feared.”

Rocky Mountain PBS reports that an investigation in 2016 showed that “drug violations reported by Colorado’s K-12 schools have increased 45 percent in the past four years, even as the combined number of all other violations has fallen.”

The investigation found that drug violations by high school aged students had increased by 71 percent since legalization.

Colorado ranks first in the country for marijuana use among teens, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

The head of Colorado’s Marijuana Accountability Coalition said, “It’s one thing to decriminalize marijuana, it’s an entirely different thing to legalize an industry that has commercialized a drug that is devastating our kids and devastating whole communities.”

The Gazette editorial concludes, “Commercial pot’s five-year anniversary is an odious occasion for those who want safer streets, healthier kids and less suffering associated with substance abuse.”

A father reads to his three young children from the Holy Bible.

Are you concerned about your children’s future?

How to keep your kids healthier, guard against substance abuse, and have more peace of mind

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.’”