AGW Believers Replace Scientific Method With Dogma Pt. 2: Suppressing Dissent

by H. Sterling Burnett

 

People caught in the grips of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the idea that human activities, primarily fossil fuel use, are causing catastrophic change in the world’s climate, seem to live with blinders on, unable to admit evidence to the contrary. 

I don’t begrudge the opinion of scientists who believe their own research shows, or who believe the dominant number of peer-reviewed papers indicates, humans are causing dangerous climate change. But I do disagree with many of the assumptions made by proponents of AGW. So far, evidence shows most of their projections concerning temperatures, ice, hurricanes, species extinction, etc. have failed. As a result, their projections of future climate conditions are not nearly trustworthy enough to make the kind of fundamental, wrenching, and costly changes to our economy and systems of government AGW proponents have proposed to fight climate change. I don’t think climate scientists can foretell the future any better than the average palm reader.

Making matters worse, AGW proponents discount, or ignore entirely, powerful studies that seem to undermine many of their assumptions and refute most of their conclusions.

Admittedly, I start with a position of skepticism, and indeed suspicion, when well-known researchers release a new study purporting to reinforce or provide further evidence AGW is true. This isn’t because I don’t want to hear what those who disagree with my assessment have to say. Rather, it’s based on my understanding of the lengths to which AGW true believers have gone to manipulate temperature data and try to shoehorn or force this and other data to match their dire projections.  It is reasonable, and even expected, for educated people to disagree with one another on this issue. This back-and-forth exchange of points and counterpoints shows the scientific method functioning as it should.

Many AGW believers, however, have seemingly abandoned the scientific method.

Progress is made in science by proposing a hypothesis, and developing a theory, to explain or understand certain phenomena, and then testing the hypothesis against reality. A particular hypothesis is considered superior to others when, through testing, it is shown to have more explanatory power than competing theories or hypotheses and when other scientists running the same testing regime can reproduce the results of the original test. Every theory or hypothesis must be disconfirmable in principle, such that if the theory predicts ‘A’ will occur under certain conditions, but instead sometimes ‘B’ or ‘C’ results, then the theory has problems. The more a hypothesis’ predictions prove inconsistent with results that occur during testing or real-world data, the less likely the hypothesis is to be correct.

AGW theory does not work this way. No matter what the climate phenomenon, if it can in some way be presented as being unusual by AGW proponents, it is argued to be “further evidence of global warming,” even if it contradicts earlier phenomena pointed to by the same people as evidence of global warming. {The same technique evolutionists use to defend their theory. A Theory so inaccurate the courts rule ex cathedra in favor of it - ED}  

What effects AGW will have seem to depend on which scientist one consults and which model they use. In realm of climate change research, different models looking at the same phenomenon applying the same laws of physics with the same inputs produce dramatically varied results.

Another indication AGW advocates have thrown over the scientific method is how they revert to various logical fallacies to manipulate peoples’ emotions in order to have the public dismiss climate realists’ arguments and research. AGW advocates commit the fallacy of ad hominem when they call researchers who disagree with their assessment of the strength of the case for AGW “deniers”—an obvious attempt to link them in the public’s mind with despicable Holocaust deniers. That is not science, it’s rhetoric. I know of no one who denies the fact climate changes, but there are significant uncertainties and legitimate disagreements regarding the extent of humanity’s role in recent climate changes and whether these will be disastrous. Those who refuse to acknowledge highly regarded scientists disagree with AGW are the real “deniers,” and they should suffer the opprobrium rightfully attached to that label.

AGW proponents commit the fallacy of appeal to numbers when they say the case for dangerous human-caused climate change is settled because some high percentage of a subset of scholars agrees humans are causing dangerous climate change. Consensus is a political, not a scientific, term. People once thought Earth was flat. Galileo disagreed, saying he believed it was round—and he was persecuted for saying so. And you know what? Galileo was right, and the consensus of the time was wrong. At one time, people, including the intellectual elite, believed Earth was the center of the universe and the Sun revolved around it. Copernicus said just the opposite. He was right, and everyone else was wrong.

Knowledge acquisition succeeds not through bowing to some purported consensus in thought and opinion, but through questioning previously received wisdom and continuously testing scientific theories against data. “Because the vast majority of us said so,” is not a legitimate scientific response to research raising questions about all or some part of AGW.

AGW researchers commit the fallacy of appeal to motive when they say a particular study or the work of a particular scientist or group of scientists should not be taken seriously because of who funded them. Both sides commit this fallacy, with climate skeptics often arguing AGW research is biased based on the fact it was funded by government, which history shows is predisposed toward finding reasons grow and exert ever more control over people.

Research should be judged based on the validity of its assumptions, whether its premises are true, and whether its conclusions follow from its premises, not on who funded the research. Data, evidence, and logic are the hallmarks of science, not motives.

Beyond the routine data manipulation and logical fallacies, AGW advocates’ own e-mails show they have tried to suppress the publication of research skeptical toward AGW. And they have routinely attempted to interfere with the career advancement of scholars who refuse to completely toe the AGW line, even stooping on occasion to try to get scholars fired for producing research undermining AGW.

AGW fanatics also try to suppress the teaching of a balanced, accurate understanding of the current state of climate science, with all its uncertainties, in the nation’s schools. This is the tool of the propagandist, not the scientist seeking the truth.

All these reflections came to a head in recent years, as AGW true believers have fought in court to prevent the release of the data underpinning their own research, attempted to suppress free speech by accusing those with whom they disagree of committing libel, and even on occasion called for the prosecution and incarceration of climate skeptics for daring to question AGW orthodoxy. Some AGW proponents have openly admired various authoritarian regimes for their ability to “get things done” without the interference of democratic institutions. Real scientists know truths do not bloom under authoritarianism.

When a theory does not comport with the facts, data, and evidence, it is the theory that should be questioned, not the data or the motives of those bringing such evidence to the world’s attention. Consider this my plea for AGW true believers to embrace, once again, the scientific method, to follow the evidence in the field of climate research where it leads even if it proves inconvenient or inconsistent with their earlier beliefs. To the extent I myself have failed to live up to this ideal, I will try and do the same, approaching AGW arguments with an open mind.


Russiagate: Behind the Propaganda…

by Chris Campbell 

Americans are some of the most soulful, creative and brilliant humans on this planet. That’s why the machine needs to propagandize them so aggressively.”  – Caitlin Johnstone

There are a couple of idiots, the propagandists, calling for blood on TV.  And a couple others, the pawns, spilling it. Yes. The world is full of crazies. But crazy is not the absolute norm. Most just want to be left alone.

“Civilization,” historian Will Durant writes, “is a stream with banks. The stream is sometimes filled with from people stealing, shouting and doing the things historians usually record, while on the banks, unnoticed, people build homes, make love, raise children, sing songs, write poetry and even whittle statues. The story of civilization is the story of what happened on the banks. Historians are pessimists because they ignore the banks for the river.”


Propaganda 101


The propagandist, of course, supports such a lopsided perception.  The propagandist wants you (and the historian) to think the river represents the banks. History’s redheaded stepchildren, the “common” people, are to be seen but not heard. Crafted through careful planning and callous retrospect, indeed, but never defined by their own minds.  And, that’s what’s most insidious…

Propaganda doesn’t just aim, in real-time, to teach people how to feel about the “others.” It also aims to instruct individuals on how they should feel about themselves and their neighbors, too.


Using America as an example…


“Jaded Americans,” Caitlin Johnstone tweeted last week, “talk to me about how ignorant and awful their countrymen are, expecting me to agree, I guess. I don’t. Americans are some of the most soulful, creative and brilliant humans on this planet. That’s why the machine needs to propagandize them so aggressively.”

Johnstone, if you don’t know, is an Aussie journalist. (And one of a select few lefty writers I’ve grown to admire.)  And, today, never one to hold back, she has something to say about those who still swallow the “Russiagate” narrative, hook, line and sinker.


Read on.
 

People Believe In Russiagate Because They Lack Self-Awareness

By Caitlin Johnstone

 I recently watched a former Hillary Clinton aide trying to prove in front of his large social media audience that the Sanders supporter who was arguing with him was actually a Russian bot using an improvised Turing test.


Article continues Here



Canada's ATA to Launch Prism an Agenda for Elementary School LGBTQ Indoctrination

by Gerald Weston


As most of you are well aware, our world is in moral meltdown, and hardly a day goes by when we are not slapped in the face with this fact.  Note this title from The Guardian: “French MPs vote to ban abortion websites that intimidate women.”  The article then goes on to say, “The socialist government’s proposal seeks to criminalise any websites that deliberately mislead, intimidate or ‘exert psychological or moral pressure’ on a woman seeking information about terminating a pregnancy, with punishment of up to two years in prison and a €30,000 fine.”  Of course, we would fully agree and condemn any attempt to “deliberately mislead” or “intimidate,” but the phrase, “exert psychological or moral pressure” is open to interpretation and troubling.  Will telling the truth about the sanctity of life from a biblical perspective be classified as “moral pressure”?  I think that we can see the dangers this presents to those who dare preach the truth in our “politically correct” world. 

Another country that is taking the lead in abandoning biblical values is Canada.  The government of Alberta earlier this year began a social engineering campaign to indoctrinate the province’s children with an LGBTQ agenda.  As a November 1, 2016 CBC News story points out, the Alberta Teacher’s Association has picked up the baton with PRISM, a manuscript instructing teachers how to propagandize children in their grand social experiment.  “A new toolkit to assist Alberta teachers with LGBTQ discussions is being slammed by critics for suggesting drag shows could be staged in schools and students be addressed as ‘comrades’ rather than boys and girls.  Those are just two of the proposals in a 150-page document from the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA). The ‘Prism Toolkit for Safe and Caring Discussions’ aims to help teachers create classrooms and curriculum that are more LGBTQ inclusive.”

It is suggested on page 101 of this toolkit that, “Students may want to invite local drag queens to come to the school to teach make-up and hair techniques.”  This is only one of the more outrageous proposals, but it is perhaps the more subtle suggestions that are most dangerous.  “Normalizing content can be more helpful than the token ‘gay’ lesson as it is embedded in our regular practice” (p. 115). No subject is left out.  Everyday language and practice is to be transformed.  Pronouns such as he, she, him, her, himself and herself are to be replaced with: ze, xe, per, zir, xem hir, xyrself, perself, etc.  No my friends, these are not misspellings, but new pronouns being shoved down the throats of unsuspecting and vulnerable children who don’t understand what is being done!

Psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman worked in the health services department at UCLA and witnessed firsthand the activism found in academia.  She explains where this is headed in her powerful book, Unprotected: “Their goal is an androgynous culture, where the differences between male and female are discounted or denied, and the bond between them robbed of singularity” (p. xxi). 

Ontario is another Canadian province in meltdown.  “Up to four people will be able to be recognized as the parents of a child without a court order, if all parties entered into a written pre-conception agreement to be parents of the child together. The birth parent is required to be one of the parties to the agreement” (Ontario Newsroom, Nov. 29, 2016).  This bill also changes the Children’s Law Reform Act and Vital Statistics Act to “use gender-neutral terminology, where possible.”

But it gets worse!  The Grand Marshall for the Ottawa Gay Pride Parade this past year was a gender-confused boy who sees himself as a girl.  As Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, explained to LifeSiteNews, “This unfortunate 10-year-old child is being exploited by adult transgender activists in order to normalize their own mental illness and procure special rights.

Many are blind to what is happening and are falling for the propaganda being pumped out by these activists and supported by a sympathetic news media, but these behaviors are NOT normal.  A gullible public doesn’t realize how carefully crafted propaganda strategies are manipulating its thinking, and anyone who honestly disagrees with them is labeled “homophobic” or “homo-haters”!  Such intimidation tactics are dishonest. The ones who truly hate are those who promote dangerous behaviors.  Since when is it love to encourage someone to live in a nightmarish fantasy world?

One of America’s most respected psychiatrists is Dr. Paul McHugh, who is a University Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.  Regarding this subject, he explained in the Wall Street Journal: “The transgendered suffer a disorder of ‘assumption’ like those in other belief disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature—namely one’s maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.”

He also wrote: “Yet policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes” (WSJ, June 12, 2014).

And what are those “grim psychological outcomes”?  Dr. McHugh points out that in a large comprehensive Swedish study, individuals who are 10 years out after going through reassignment surgery to satisfy their sad delusions have a rate of suicide 20 times higher than that of the average population!  So is it hate or is it love to tell people the truth and try to get them needed help?

Yet every kind of unnatural behavior is being promoted among our children and grandchildren.  God tells us through the writings of the Apostle Paul: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind. . .” (Romans 1:28).  J.B. Phillips translates this verse: “Moreover, since they considered themselves too high and mighty to acknowledge God, he allowed them to become the slaves of their degenerate minds, and to perform unmentionable deeds.”

In the introduction of PRISM, the toolkit for Alberta’s teachers to use in indoctrinating other people’s children, note this bizarre explanation:  “Many acronyms are used, but the most recognizable and common is LGBTQ. While this acronym is useful and has important historical roots, it has been criticized for not being inclusive of all marginalized identities.  A more inclusive version of that acronym is LGBTTTPQQAI+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Two-Spirit, Pansexual, Queer, Questioning, Asexual, Aromantic, Ally, Intersex, etc.…); however, this acronym can make conversations about this topic cumbersome. 

The Alberta Teachers’ Association uses Sexual and Gender Minority (SGM) to be inclusive of all identities and ways of being.  You will find this acronym throughout ATA materials. Materials adapted from outside sources may still use the LGBTQ acronyms or variations thereof.  Outside of this resource, you may encounter other acronyms such as MOGAI (Marginalized Orientations, Gender Identities and Intersex) or QUILTBAG (Queer/Questioning, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans (Transgender/Transsexual), Bisexual, Asexual, and/or Gay)” (p. 7).

 Can we not see where our world is headed?  Can we not see that these are not normal times and that God’s patience will soon wear out?  Can we not see that disaster lurks right over the horizon and that the storm clouds are building?  Can we not see our need to turn fully to Him?


 


The Living Church of God has congregations in many nations and cities around the world, and if you are willing to step out in faith to fully live the way the Bible instructs, we hope you will check us out. So whether you live near Sylva, North Carolina or Bismarck, North Dakota; Grande Prairie, Alberta or St. John’s, Newfoundland; Glasgow, Scotland or Hook, England— it may be that there is a small congregation of people near you who believe as you do that the Bible is the living word of God, that it is to be obeyed, and that its prophecies are true. Visit us at Tomorrow's World.org



Deadly Medicine Creating the Master Race

by John Carlos Cantu           


U-M Taubman Health Sciences Library exhibit presents a chilling look at Nazi ideology.

The 1938 words of Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi minister of propaganda, stand above the display panels of what is undoubtedly the most somber exhibit Ann Arbor has seen at the University of Michigan Taubman Health Sciences Library.  Goebbel’s quote runs as follows: “Our starting point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe the naked…. Our objectives are entirely different: We must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world.” 

These words are chilling and they’re more than an adequate rationale for this heart-rending investigation into a politics that sought to implement one of the most perverse policies in history. 

As Mary Beth Reilly, writer for the U-M’s Center for the History of Medicine, says in the display’s gallery statement, “The Nazi regime was founded upon the conviction that ‘inferior races’ and individuals had to be eliminated from German society so that the fittest ‘Aryans’ could thrive. 

“By the end of World War II, six million Jews and millions of others—among them Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), people with disabilities, homosexuals, and others belonging to ethnic groups deemed inferior—had been persecuted and murdered.”  And as Alexandra Minna Stern, Zina Pitcher Collegiate Professor of the History of Medicine and Associate Director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the U-M Medical School, adds, “The exhibition is a visually powerful experience for viewers that shows how the doctrine of racial hygiene was taken to its most heinous extremes.” 

Indeed. And as the exhibit pointedly illustrates, there’s more than enough blame to go around. For the exhibit begins with a panel illustrating the various programs from countries around the world (including the United States) advocating various eugenic schemes at the turn of the 20th century whose “racial hygiene” included programs in population policy, public health education, and government-funded research whose ends (even if they weren’t remotely the same) clearly showed an undeniable bias.  

The rediscovery of Austrian botanist Gregor Mendel’s genetics experiments in 1900 coupled with the increasingly fashionable “Social Darwinism” of British philosopher cum sociologist Herbert Spencer, whose catchphrase “survival of the fittest” was being bandied about, led to increasing public prestige in the efforts to stabilize public policy issues that emerged with increasing industrialization and urbanization. This was, in retrospect, a philosophical and political slippery slope that was in part absorbed in the ideology and practice of the newly emergent Nazi party of the 1920s. 

From the early 1930s through the balance of the Nazi regime, there were repeated campaigns to rid German society of what they viewed as biological threats. As “Deadly Medicine” clearly shows, this policy absorbed the efforts and energies of many of the nation’s most talented doctors, psychiatrists, anthropologists, and medically trained geneticists, as well as social planners and party functionaries at every level.  [And soon to be repeated in the form of Obamacare - ED] 

What started as a secret campaign to eliminate the weak and infirm disguised as medical assistance metastasized into a full-fledge program of eradication under the pressure of World War II. Ultimately, this so-called “sanitary campaign” finally took form as a genocide that we now know as the Holocaust, resulting in the near total annihilation of Europe’s Jewish population. 

To its credit, “Deadly Medicine” doesn’t pull any punches. Its juxtaposition of scientific certitude and racial hatred are handled as responsibly as the topics deserve. 

By naming names, dates, and events—as well as providing significant visual evidence—the exhibit takes the full measure of this circumstance where those in charge of healing and sustenance distorted their responsibilities until their lifework turned into a horror whose pain continues to this day.  

It’s certainly enough pain for Professor Stern to remind us that the example of this massive failure of science, technology, tolerance, and ultimately compassion, “raises weighty questions about the potential benefits and harms of genetic and reproductive technologies today.” And it’s on this cautionary note that the solemn exhibit rightfully concludes.

 

 




“It’s certainly enough pain for Professor Stern to remind us that the example of this massive failure of science, technology, tolerance, and ultimately compassion, “raises weighty questions about the potential benefits and harms of genetic and reproductive technologies today.” And it’s on this cautionary note that the solemn exhibit rightfully concludes.”  The article first appeared here. - DNI