Science is a good thing, as long it is actually good science, and it obeys its own rules for acquiring knowledge. But when science is misused and abused, then of course, it can lead to disastrous ends. For example, I found an article that was written in regards to the issue of "food security", which is a government code phrase for not having enough food in the house. In the study, subjective questions were asked of those surveyed, without any set definitions for the terms they use in the survey. So, it was more of an opinion poll rather than one of objective fact finding.
What I want us to understand is that all of this subjective "fact finding" usually leads to public policy and taxes based on income, right? So, why not ask the employees of any company: "Do you make enough money?" After this survey, what would happen if the owners were forced to pay their employees what they - the surveyed - thought they should make? This is just not how the real world works, dear reader. In this "food security" poll, I don't think anyone was asked about food budgeting vs. entertainment budgeting, or portion sizes, or anything remotely scientific, it was all questions based on what they "felt." Feelings are not allowed in logical scientific fact gathering, just ask Dr. Sheldon Cooper, Mr. Spock and the "just the facts ma'am" guy from the show 'Dragnet.' Uh oh. After the results of this survey are processed, I sense more government programs on the horizon that provide the lazy with bread stolen from those who work and pay taxes, don't you?
Junk science comes about when the scientists don't follow their own rules when gathering and applying information. Especially, if there is an ulterior motive behind the "science." I have heard it said that scientists themselves are often their own worst enemy, in that they are blinded by their own bias. But then, aren't we all biased to some degree? A true scientist (if one actually exists) will concede his preconceived notions, when the data and experiments conclusively prove them wrong. Even so, many times, the tests themselves, and the data collected from them are skewed from the start, that is why controls and other scientists are required to get a more objective and "true" result.
Junk Science Breeds Fear Mongering
Another example of the danger of junk science can be seen in the 1970's, when the world's leading scientists insisted that the globe was on a dangerous cooling trend, and spinning out of control toward another Ice Age-- I kid you not. Just Google it. Their junk science caused some panic and fear mongering among its "bulging" population, and even allowed for some social experimentation through resource shortages, such as gasoline and even (of all things) canning lids. I remember that, even as young as I was. Do any of you remember that? Of course, these shortages were contrived, they weren't real. They only came to pass by the will of evil men. You see, these psychopaths (haters of mankind) who are currently in control of our world governments, count on the chattel's (that's us) short term memories, and they cruelly play on our fears. Now, after only a few decades after the "ice age" scare, what are these junk scientists pushing now? Global warming! Now they claim that our planet’s temperature is rising to alarming proportions! So don't forget to send your tax deductible donations to any, and all junk science labs, that are working hard to find solutions to problems that don't really exist.
What I want us to understand is that all of this subjective "fact finding" usually leads to public policy and taxes based on income, right? So, why not ask the employees of any company: "Do you make enough money?" After this survey, what would happen if the owners were forced to pay their employees what they - the surveyed - thought they should make? This is just not how the real world works, dear reader. In this "food security" poll, I don't think anyone was asked about food budgeting vs. entertainment budgeting, or portion sizes, or anything remotely scientific, it was all questions based on what they "felt." Feelings are not allowed in logical scientific fact gathering, just ask Dr. Sheldon Cooper, Mr. Spock and the "just the facts ma'am" guy from the show 'Dragnet.' Uh oh. After the results of this survey are processed, I sense more government programs on the horizon that provide the lazy with bread stolen from those who work and pay taxes, don't you?
Junk science comes about when the scientists don't follow their own rules when gathering and applying information. Especially, if there is an ulterior motive behind the "science." I have heard it said that scientists themselves are often their own worst enemy, in that they are blinded by their own bias. But then, aren't we all biased to some degree? A true scientist (if one actually exists) will concede his preconceived notions, when the data and experiments conclusively prove them wrong. Even so, many times, the tests themselves, and the data collected from them are skewed from the start, that is why controls and other scientists are required to get a more objective and "true" result.
Junk Science Breeds Fear Mongering
Another example of the danger of junk science can be seen in the 1970's, when the world's leading scientists insisted that the globe was on a dangerous cooling trend, and spinning out of control toward another Ice Age-- I kid you not. Just Google it. Their junk science caused some panic and fear mongering among its "bulging" population, and even allowed for some social experimentation through resource shortages, such as gasoline and even (of all things) canning lids. I remember that, even as young as I was. Do any of you remember that? Of course, these shortages were contrived, they weren't real. They only came to pass by the will of evil men. You see, these psychopaths (haters of mankind) who are currently in control of our world governments, count on the chattel's (that's us) short term memories, and they cruelly play on our fears. Now, after only a few decades after the "ice age" scare, what are these junk scientists pushing now? Global warming! Now they claim that our planet’s temperature is rising to alarming proportions! So don't forget to send your tax deductible donations to any, and all junk science labs, that are working hard to find solutions to problems that don't really exist.
According to junk scientists, this problem of too much carbon dioxide, is heating up the earth as much as one degree, and will lead to massive flooding by the out of control melting of our polar icecaps, and so on. So, which is it people? Is the Earth cooling toward an Ice Age, or is it heating up like an un-ventilated green house? Pick a lane, because it can’t be both. Well, according to them it can, since they make this stuff up as they go. With a flick of their abacuses, they are able to reduce the billions of years that they claim usually separate these two extremes, into only a few decades with the help of cleaver propaganda tactics, but mostly with really cool looking power point graphs they plug into their computers. So I say, let's use some common sense instead shall we? I looked up the average temperature of the polar ice caps, and do you know what I found? They never reach above 17 degrees Fahrenheit, even in the summer. It is a proven fact that ice melts at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. So even if the earth's temp rose 1 or 2 degrees, then the polar ice caps still aren't melting. In reality, it isn't ambient temperatures that affect polar ice caps, but precipitation levels. Let me explain.
Snow and ice are heavy and they are also insulators. And so, the more ice and snow that are laid down, the more heat, through pressure, is caused and retained. I know it is hard to think of something so cold as being capable of producing heat, or retaining heat, but in the amazing world of Physical Science, it is true. The revelation of this fact is now helping people in northern states use their cold weather to their advantage by heating their homes more efficiently. By cooling already cold air with condensers, and then capturing the heat difference with coils -blah blah blah- basically they are making heat more efficiently and cheaply - yay real science! Well, okay, let me explain it a little bit better. It costs more to heat cold air, than it does to cool it down. The difference between 32 degrees and 70 degree is quite a bit (38 degrees), but if you cool 32 degree air to 0 degrees, which takes less energy, the amount of heat is nearly the same, and it is captured as heat. Now that is real science, and it is also extremely beneficial for the environment, the people, and most of all, their pocketbooks!
Anyway, that is why icebergs fall into the ocean, the heat generated from the pressure of all that icy weight, not because of ambient temperatures. For a simple experiment to prove this, press both of your hands together as hard as you can, what do you feel? Heat. That's real science. Precipitation happens by evaporation, or when the sun's radiant heat causes water to vaporize and rise into the atmosphere where it cools and becomes clouds. When the clouds are heavy with water and envelopes solid particles, it falls as either rain, snow, hail, or sleet. Precipitation cycles can be interrupted and cause droughts, or they can be heavy and cause flooding. These extremes fluctuate from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century. So you can't honestly say that the earth is really getting any hotter, or colder, well, not enough to raise any real alarm, based on a single drought year, or an odd year of heavy rain or snow fall. Even if the earth was getting hotter, then the oceans would still be evaporating, one would think at a greater rate, and make up for the melting ice caps. God set up the cycles and the laws of earth to help balance it.
As for accurately measuring earths temperatures, apparently, this can only be done from space by using a satellite, and not by dropping a thermometer into the ocean, or the earth's crust, where temperatures can fluctuate at different depths and at certain times of year. Ask any farmer, and he will tell you that microclimates are just as important as macroclimates (I think I invented some new words according to my spell check). So according to the science that says concrete and stone absorb more heat than grass, I think it is safe to say that metropolitan concrete cities will absorb and retain more heat than a sprawling rural farm community, wouldn't you agree? Knowing that, is it logical, or even honest, to place the vast majority of earth temperature reading stations in and around urban areas? No. This is what is called "stacking the deck" in ones favor. It's not only biased, it's morally wrong.
Snow and ice are heavy and they are also insulators. And so, the more ice and snow that are laid down, the more heat, through pressure, is caused and retained. I know it is hard to think of something so cold as being capable of producing heat, or retaining heat, but in the amazing world of Physical Science, it is true. The revelation of this fact is now helping people in northern states use their cold weather to their advantage by heating their homes more efficiently. By cooling already cold air with condensers, and then capturing the heat difference with coils -blah blah blah- basically they are making heat more efficiently and cheaply - yay real science! Well, okay, let me explain it a little bit better. It costs more to heat cold air, than it does to cool it down. The difference between 32 degrees and 70 degree is quite a bit (38 degrees), but if you cool 32 degree air to 0 degrees, which takes less energy, the amount of heat is nearly the same, and it is captured as heat. Now that is real science, and it is also extremely beneficial for the environment, the people, and most of all, their pocketbooks!
Anyway, that is why icebergs fall into the ocean, the heat generated from the pressure of all that icy weight, not because of ambient temperatures. For a simple experiment to prove this, press both of your hands together as hard as you can, what do you feel? Heat. That's real science. Precipitation happens by evaporation, or when the sun's radiant heat causes water to vaporize and rise into the atmosphere where it cools and becomes clouds. When the clouds are heavy with water and envelopes solid particles, it falls as either rain, snow, hail, or sleet. Precipitation cycles can be interrupted and cause droughts, or they can be heavy and cause flooding. These extremes fluctuate from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century. So you can't honestly say that the earth is really getting any hotter, or colder, well, not enough to raise any real alarm, based on a single drought year, or an odd year of heavy rain or snow fall. Even if the earth was getting hotter, then the oceans would still be evaporating, one would think at a greater rate, and make up for the melting ice caps. God set up the cycles and the laws of earth to help balance it.
As for accurately measuring earths temperatures, apparently, this can only be done from space by using a satellite, and not by dropping a thermometer into the ocean, or the earth's crust, where temperatures can fluctuate at different depths and at certain times of year. Ask any farmer, and he will tell you that microclimates are just as important as macroclimates (I think I invented some new words according to my spell check). So according to the science that says concrete and stone absorb more heat than grass, I think it is safe to say that metropolitan concrete cities will absorb and retain more heat than a sprawling rural farm community, wouldn't you agree? Knowing that, is it logical, or even honest, to place the vast majority of earth temperature reading stations in and around urban areas? No. This is what is called "stacking the deck" in ones favor. It's not only biased, it's morally wrong.
I mean really, can only a few decades of spewing carbon emissions really make that much of a difference in our global climate? According to them, apparently so. Even though common sense and basic third grade science tells us that carbon dioxide only makes up 0.039% of our breathable air, and plants use it to help make oxygen and food via photosynthesis. In fact, it is the oceans, and not the rain forests, that manufacture most of the 20.95% of the oxygen in our atmosphere, which comes from its plankton. Does that mean we can mow down all the rain forests? No, let's not get silly by cutting off our nose despite our face. We still need the rain forests, even though they don't make the bulk of our oxygen. There are people and creatures who rely on these vital forests for their livelihood.
Now, let's use some more common sense. If plants need carbon dioxide to make food to grow, and the oxygen they make for us to breath is their by-product (two major things that most life on this planet needs) then wouldn't it stand to reason that by reducing carbon dioxide, we will be limiting plant growth? Who said that carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" anyway? We need carbon dioxide to be part of our atmosphere, to balance all the other gases in our atmosphere, most of which is actually nitrogen. And according to nutritionists, and physical trainers everywhere, it is the oxidation process that ages and kills us. So in order to live longer, should we now campaign against oxygen?
And common sense regarding global warming and green house effects, should also tell us that the nature of the opposite seasons on each hemisphere, and the day/night schedule of daily rotation, actually help regulate global temperatures. Are there years that are colder or warmer than others? Sure, but these are only minor fluctuations that happen from time to time. In reality, for those of us who have had, and understand how real green houses work, we know that the globe earth itself is not a very good example, or model of a "green house." Unless of course we have some sort of clear solid shield protecting our planet, like seen in the movie, Space Balls!
Now, let's use some more common sense. If plants need carbon dioxide to make food to grow, and the oxygen they make for us to breath is their by-product (two major things that most life on this planet needs) then wouldn't it stand to reason that by reducing carbon dioxide, we will be limiting plant growth? Who said that carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" anyway? We need carbon dioxide to be part of our atmosphere, to balance all the other gases in our atmosphere, most of which is actually nitrogen. And according to nutritionists, and physical trainers everywhere, it is the oxidation process that ages and kills us. So in order to live longer, should we now campaign against oxygen?
And common sense regarding global warming and green house effects, should also tell us that the nature of the opposite seasons on each hemisphere, and the day/night schedule of daily rotation, actually help regulate global temperatures. Are there years that are colder or warmer than others? Sure, but these are only minor fluctuations that happen from time to time. In reality, for those of us who have had, and understand how real green houses work, we know that the globe earth itself is not a very good example, or model of a "green house." Unless of course we have some sort of clear solid shield protecting our planet, like seen in the movie, Space Balls!
Overpopulation
Here is another junk science claim that exposes the Utopian ideals that the world’s movers and shakers hold near and dear in their evil hearts: the earth is over populated.
My mom retold this 70's media blitz to me several years ago, when celebrities would get on T.V. and preach the gospel of 2.5 children, while they themselves often had more than the Utopian allotment. On a side note, how does one have 2.5 children as opposed to 2 or 3? Anyway, I remember how this nonsense would get her all riled up, and she would start yelling at Joanne Whorley on the T.V., saying that she had no right to say anything since she had, what - 4, or 5 kids? See what junk science can do? It can cause sensible people to do crazy things, like yell at inanimate objects!
My mom retold this 70's media blitz to me several years ago, when celebrities would get on T.V. and preach the gospel of 2.5 children, while they themselves often had more than the Utopian allotment. On a side note, how does one have 2.5 children as opposed to 2 or 3? Anyway, I remember how this nonsense would get her all riled up, and she would start yelling at Joanne Whorley on the T.V., saying that she had no right to say anything since she had, what - 4, or 5 kids? See what junk science can do? It can cause sensible people to do crazy things, like yell at inanimate objects!
What this junk science claim really did, was to foster great public hostility toward large families, and even religions that promoted large families. I know this for a fact, because we experienced it. So is this so-called "scientific" claim true? Is the earth really over populated? Well, as always, let's think shall we? In reality, the world is not over populated and simple math can prove this. In design school, I was taught about personal space, which at the very least, applies to Americans, and it is 9 square feet of empty space around your person. So, if we take 9 (area of personal space) and multiply it by the world’s population, which is at the writing of this article, just over 6.5 billion people; the answer we get is 58 billion square feet, or roughly 2,098.5 square miles. That sounds like a lot until you compare it to something. So now let's compare this number to something.
Look up on the Inter/web to find how many square miles is in the L.A. basin. It ranges between 450 to 1900 square miles, depending on what borders are used. That's right, you could set the entire world's population with 9 square feet of personal space in between everyone, with in the entire L.A. basin, two to four times, thus leaving the rest of the world's 57.5 billion (with a "b") square miles of land completely unpopulated! And you thought you'd never need math! I urge you to examine the map below for a stunning visual of this reality, as compared to the fictitious cartoon above. If you don't believe me, then do the math yourself.
Look up on the Inter/web to find how many square miles is in the L.A. basin. It ranges between 450 to 1900 square miles, depending on what borders are used. That's right, you could set the entire world's population with 9 square feet of personal space in between everyone, with in the entire L.A. basin, two to four times, thus leaving the rest of the world's 57.5 billion (with a "b") square miles of land completely unpopulated! And you thought you'd never need math! I urge you to examine the map below for a stunning visual of this reality, as compared to the fictitious cartoon above. If you don't believe me, then do the math yourself.
Even though the earth is clearly not overpopulated, that doesn't stop the Utopian minded world leaders’ from conniving, and contriving to convince the world that overpopulation is a real threat to our (they really mean "their") survival, and their solutions to this particular fictitious junk science claim are rather drastic. They are on a hellish campaign to convince us that by using contraception, and legalized abortion, and even overtly and subliminally selling the idea to commit geo-suicide (killing oneself to save the planet); these cruel acts (as they claim) will all help stem the rising tide of world populations, and make this a much nicer, and greener place to live. And let's not forget their most effective weapons they employ in drastically reducing mass populations, which are propaganda movies, needless wars sold under the guise of national security and patriotism, and the banning of biological chemicals that are proven to only kill pathogen carrying insects. Hollyweird is especially effective by slowly and subtly breaching these taboo subjects, in order to desensitize us to the possibility of killing people before they reach elderly status, like we see in "Logan's Run."
Yesiree, this world's crazy elitist consensus, based on their psychopath science of eugenics, is that all 6.5 billion of us are useless eaters (chattle/sheeple), and are a blight on the butt of their Utopian self-righteous existence. Eugenics, if we care to remember, was used by Utopian minded groups in the fairly recent past, but was according to the current purists, "polluted" by the Nazi's, who used these same principles in an effort to bring about their Nazi German Utopia. Uh, hello...it's the same crap! Eugenics has always sought to direct human evolution by human will, not by random chance. This is done by using various resources such as biology (genetic modifications, and selective breeding), education (ironically teaching evolution), history (by re-writing it), religion (based in New Age spirituality/Mystery religion), earth sciences (mostly junk based) and so forth . Such things are looked to by the elites, as their means of organizing humanity into what the elite consider to be, a harmonious entity. Right. Sure. Harmonious.
Again, according to "wisdom" of these Utopian minded overlords, there are far too many people sucking up their precious limited resources. The resources they jealously covet, and guard really aren't limited, they just tell you they are by using junk science, and really cool looking graphs and artist renderings. For instance, did you know dear reader, that water is a renewable resource? I know, crazy huh? Through something called, the precipitation cycle, water is evaporated by the sun, and collected in the atmosphere as clouds, which then falls to earth again in the form of rain or snow. Sure, droughts are a suspension of this natural cycle, but if we are cleaver enough, we can over come these natural droughts. I can assure you that where ever there is a drought, somewhere else there is an over abundance of water. Isn't there an Alaskan pipeline that eventually brings oil to the lower 48?
Well, why can't we build an Alaskan H2O pipe line too? I hear that North Dakota floods, darn near every winter, do to their melting snow load. So why not build aqueducts to help them divert some of that water to holding tanks for farms in the wheat and corn belts, areas that are the most susceptible to drought? Think of all the jobs these projects would create through the building and maintaining of these life giving water supply lines. As for food, we have all seen the tons of food this country alone can produce and waste, every year; it is astounding! Waste not want not, is an old saying, and it is true. We should not waste anything, but let's not get carried away to the extreme and become misers.
Well, why can't we build an Alaskan H2O pipe line too? I hear that North Dakota floods, darn near every winter, do to their melting snow load. So why not build aqueducts to help them divert some of that water to holding tanks for farms in the wheat and corn belts, areas that are the most susceptible to drought? Think of all the jobs these projects would create through the building and maintaining of these life giving water supply lines. As for food, we have all seen the tons of food this country alone can produce and waste, every year; it is astounding! Waste not want not, is an old saying, and it is true. We should not waste anything, but let's not get carried away to the extreme and become misers.
Ironically, in this age of democracy, it seems that the old mode of living by another's leave is still very much in effect. Only instead of a few tyrants (like kings), who honestly and openly tell their subjects how to live their lives; now we have many dishonest and elusive tyrants, who hide behind their hired fools, known to us as politicians, and world bankers, all of whom play an infuriating blame game that leads no where. They are the charlatans that bring to the forefront all their junk scientists that spout outlandish tales of upcoming human induced catastrophes, like global warming. Dear reader, reading and thinking are dangerous past times, I know, but these decidedly human abilities, when used and developed, can go a long way toward helping protect you from the danger of deliberate deception, so won't you give them a try?
I know that acquiring such knowledge dispels many of the fairly tales we hold dear, such as the one where no one really wants to rule the world, but if you really want to live in reality, and understand how this world really works, then don't buy into the claims of junk science propagated by those who want to rule the world. Instead, question them and use real science, and deductive reasoning. Think for yourself.
I know that acquiring such knowledge dispels many of the fairly tales we hold dear, such as the one where no one really wants to rule the world, but if you really want to live in reality, and understand how this world really works, then don't buy into the claims of junk science propagated by those who want to rule the world. Instead, question them and use real science, and deductive reasoning. Think for yourself.