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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.