Science is a discipline that once commanded a large degree of respect. Many people thought of scientists as highly educated, intelligent people whose declarations could be trusted by those who aren’t well-versed in the field. However, some very vocal, cult-minded scientists have been giving the more legitimate experts in their field a bad name, turning modern science into somewhat of a joke.
The former chief scientist of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization’s Atmospheric Research Division, Professor Garth Paltridge, expressed his concerns about this in a recent essay. He said that the way certain climate scientists behave is “seriously threatening the public’s perception of the professionalism of scientists in general.”
He believes that many climate scientists aren’t quite as certain about manmade global warming as they are willing to publicly admit, but they have nevertheless decided to denigrate those who disagree with them. He points out how they act like only those who are part of the climate-change cult are qualified to give advice about the topic, and they do their best to exclude skeptics from public discourse or even refuse to speak in forums where those with opposing views might be given air time.
He likens their attitude to that of a “medieval religion,” wherein priests felt that people who didn’t have their training shouldn’t have direct access to God’s word because they might get it wrong.
Is climate science even a real science?
Paltridge goes on to say that he isn’t even sure climate science should be considered a science at all given its heavy political influences; science, after all, must be led by evidence and experimentation. He says this form of “post-modern science” is very dangerous in the sense that its results are only valid within the context of the beliefs of society, and it’s all too easy for people to deny scientific truths.
Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.
“Post-modern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day,” he said, adding that some climate scientists have gone well beyond what is considered appropriate scientific behavior.
He’s quick to point out that he’s not saying scientists are inherently bad, but it’s ultimately a job and like all of us, scientists have bills to say. Right now, nearly all of the research money is being granted to scientists espousing alarmist beliefs rather than the skeptics.
This, he said, explains why some of the biggest voices warning about climate change during their professional lives had a change of opinion upon retirement. Indeed, many scientists have been altering temperature data and “adjusting” tidal gauge data to make it support the notion of manmade climate change to keep those who sign their paychecks happy.
This is just one of the reasons that more than 31,000 scientists signed a petition that includes peer-reviewed research dispelling the myth that the projected amounts of carbon dioxide will heat the Earth’s atmosphere catastrophically. It also said the global warming agenda is blocking the advancement of science across the planet.
Recent research showed that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s simulations were wildly inaccurate, overestimating the future potential impact of climate change by as much as 45 percent.
As climate change alarmists continue to alter the facts to suit their narrative, they’re ruining the reputation of their entire field and destroying people’s confidence in science in general. Read Climate.news for more updates on real climate science.
Sources for this article include:
After a lopsided Game 1 loss to the Boston Celtics, the Cleveland Cavaliers are mulling a lineup change in order to get off to a better start. According to head coach Tyronn Lue, Tristan Thompson could emerge as the starting center for Game 2, which will take place Tuesday night at Boston’s TD Garden.
Thompson has served as a starting center throughout his career, but the team optioned him to the bench in favor of a smaller lineup that spaces the floor in a more efficient way. Kevin Love, currently the starting No. 5, has struggled to guard opposing big men, and Thompson has posted solid numbers in his career in his matchup with Celtics big man Al Horford.
“Looking at the statistics, over the last three years with at least 30 possessions [defending him], out of all the guys that have guarded Al Horford, Tristan is No. 1 in the league defending Al Horford,” Lue told reporters. “So that’s a good thing.”
Horford controlled Game 1, and as multiple Celtics exploded on the offensive end, Horford was perhaps the most effective. He converted on his first seven shot attempts, and his passing and defense made him a factor in other areas.
Throughout the playoffs, Thompson has played at an elevated level–especially as his role has grown. His presence late in the Indiana Pacers series gave the Cavs a sizeable boost.
“Horford’s a very good player; he’s an All-Star,” Thompson said. “If you can’t get up to play All-Star bigs, then I have nothing to tell you.”
The Cavs will look to even the series before it heads to Cleveland’s Quicken Loans Arena for Game 3.
Keep it here on AXS.com for more NBA news and tickets to select games.
In the third season of Bill Nye’s not-so-humbly titled Netflix series Bill Nye Saves the World, there are an unusually large number of shots taken at religion. Even more awkward are the clumsy attempts at what seems to be outreach to people of faith, they are almost painful to watch they’re so bad.
At one point he shows us a picture of himself serving as an altar boy as a child as if to say, “See! I’m like you!” but that doesn’t mean he was ever actually a believer. In episode five, “Evolution: A Fact of Life.” he brings out an ex-priest to talk to the audience. Why did he leave the priesthood? To become a scientist. That’s about the least helpful thing he could have done, and he doesn’t see that.
The most egregious comment is when “comedian” Maria Bamford pops up in episode three, “The Addiction Episode,” and says that it’s not so bad attending 12-step programs for recovery from addiction even though she’s an atheist and these groups talk about God and refer to “a higher power.” How? “I choose just to change those words to ‘Neil deGrasse Tyson.’” Gross.
Maria: I am an atheist. So, sometimes people have a problem with these 12-step support groups especially because there’s a lot of mention of a spiritual world. You know, God, “higher power” is used. I choose just to change those words to “Neil deGrasse Tyson.”
[Bill Nye and Audience: Laughing and Cheering]
Bill: He’s a friend of mine.
Bill: He’ll be flattered.
No doubt Tyson, who bashed Christianity on his own science show, would be flattered. But the idea that someone would think some other regular non-deity was raised above the rest of us seems fairly creepy to me. The fact that the audience laughed and cheered was a fairly good indication that they were comfortable with a human lording over us. Then again, I believe that the higher power is God, so it sounds like this crowd doesn’t really care what I think.
The thing Nye doesn’t seem to realize is that people of faith aren’t anti-science, so we don’t need his bizarre lectures. Rather, we use science as a way to explain and make sense of what God has made. The two go together perfectly well. He doesn’t even understand faith itself. In fact, in episode six, “What is Your Pet Really Thinking?”, he asks specialists in animal behavior if animals can also have religion because, it seems to him, “What religion really gives people is community. People worship together, they hang out together, they look out for each other with this framework.” This is a guy who really doesn’t get it.
Something else he doesn’t get? Feminism. In the second episode “Surviving in a World Without Water,” which is really just a climate change episode (they had to give it a slightly different name since he covered that in the very first episode of the first season.) In this episode, he paints global warming as a feminist issue. “The main thing we can do for climate change,” Nye told a panel he was moderating, “is raise the standard of living for women and girls.” Then, in the same episode, he shares a satirical video of a dystopian future without water where one woman is unable to fulfill her dream. Watch to see what her dream is.
Julie: Kristin Miller is your typical American girl. Like many of us, she suffers with a critical water shortage, but the way it affects her is a little different.
Kristin: You know, I’ll be honest with you, it’s difficult. You dream of following in the footsteps of the great women in your family but, I guess, climate change – well, she had other plans.
Julie: Kristin Miller is the heir to a wet t-shirt empire.
So, in this future, just 29 years from now in 2047, her dream is to win a wet t-shirt contest? He also has Kristin give climate change, the thing he calls “the most serious issue facing humankind,” the pronoun “she.” Kristin collects her tears in a bowl so that she might someday be able to wet her t-shirt down to win a trophy. An empty spot waits for it with her mother’s and grandmother’s. After Nye had just made a point about how this is a feminist issue, this was incredibly tone deaf satire. Way to stand up for the women and girls, Bill!
This series of Bill Nye Saves the World had an unusual amount of religion bashing and taught us that, if we don’t stop climate change, we might have to live in a world without wet t-shirt contests. I’m pretty sure you’re going to be ok if you skip it.
Can you imagine not coming home every evening to your own space? We often take our living spaces for granted, forgetting that so many people don’t have the same luxuries as we do.
In industrialized nations, the homeless tend to be overlooked, thanks to the presence of affluence and social classes. These hierarchal structures have a unique ability to separate us, encouraging us to compete with one another and focus on our individual wants rather than the needs of the collective.
It’s estimated that more than half a million people are forcibly homeless on any given night in America. They have nowhere to go, and cities have nowhere to put them, because there simply aren’t enough safe shelters to satisfy demand.
In order to develop a greater understanding of what it’s like to be homeless, the Mayor of Salt Lake County, Utah, Ben McAdams, spent three days (two nights) living on the streets. According to the Mayor, his experience was “shocking.”
Inspiration and all our best content, straight to your inbox.
Salt Lake Mayor Learns What It’s Like to Be Homeless
McAdams’ social experiment took place on March 24, when he left his office to embark on his three-day journey living on the streets. Clearly his experience happened months ago, but it’s only coming out now because he tried to keep it under wraps, not wanting it to seem like a “publicity stunt in the face of human suffering.”
His first night was spent sleeping literally on the streets, because he wanted to further understand why someone would choose to sleep on the street rather than in a shelter. It was raining and extremely cold, given that it was mid-March.
“It was cold — below 40s,” McAdams explained. “You wonder why people would choose to do that, knowing that there were beds available in the shelter.”
Well, they certainly got their answers when they visited a shelter the second night, as it was filled with drugs and violence. Shelters aren’t like hotels — you don’t get the comfort of privacy. McAdams allegedly watched someone in the same dorm room inject drugs into his arm, and witnessed a fight, too.
“I don’t want to focus on my brief firsthand experience because I know there are people who see the same and worse every single day,” he said. “The things I saw in my very brief time were shocking and reaffirmed my commitment to take action now.”
McAdams was told not to remove his shoes because they would be stolen and not to go to the washroom because it was too dangerous.
It’s not just adults seeking shelter at these places, it’s families and children as well.
“What psychological trauma is probably inflicted on a child who doesn’t know where he’s going to sleep or where his next meal is going to come from?” McAdams asked, explaining that “we’ve got to do better for these kids.”
Keep in mind that when people conduct social experiments like these, they’re only getting a taste of what it’s truly like to live with these issues. Yes, they’re placing themselves directly in the heart of the issue, but they don’t actually know what it’s like to feel homeless. At the end of the day, if anything went wrong, they know they have the comforts of a warm bed, food, and healthcare to fall back on.
The Mayor was also in familiar company, as one of his colleagues conducted the social experiment with him, posing as another homeless person. They both left behind their wallets, with no money or IDs on hand, so they could truly deepen their understanding of the homeless system.
So, what was the Mayor’s key takeaway from his experience? McAdams said that after only getting an idea of what it’s like to be homeless, “doing nothing is not an option, even if it’s the end of me politically.”
It’s stories like these that really inspire positive change in the world. It seems that this Mayor is truly hoping to make a difference in the world by reducing the number of homeless people in America.
If you can’t afford to make a donation, I encourage you to at least smile at homeless people rather than ignoring them. Feel compassion for their situation rather than simply walking by them as if they’re not there.
You could even keep some granola bars in your car for any time you drive past a homeless person at an intersection. You can always think of innovative ways to help people out, so get creative!
Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.
With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.
Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/YsQOseUtltA/
It appears Rudy Giuliani wasn’t joking.
Just a few days after the former NYC mayor and latest member of President Trump’s unexpectedly let it slip that “we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran]”, the Washington Free Beacon has obtained a three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials with drafted plans to spark regime change in Iran, following the US exit from the Obama-era nuclear deal and the re-imposition of tough sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime.
The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including – who else – National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009, writes the Free Beacon, which obtained a leaked copy of the circulating plans.
The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House.
It deemphasizes U.S military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region. –Free Beacon
“The ordinary people of Iran are suffering under economic stagnation, while the regime ships its wealth abroad to fight its expansionist wars and to pad the bank accounts of the Mullahs and the IRGC command,” SSG writes in the paper. “This has provoked noteworthy protests across the country in recent months” it further claims as an argument to push a “regime change” policy.
For now – at least – overthrowing the Iran government, with its extensive and close ties to the Kremlin, is not official US policy; SSG president Jim Hanson told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration does not want to engage in direct military intervention in Iran – and is instead focusing on other methods of ridding Iran of its “hardline ruling regime.”
“The Trump administration has no desire to roll tanks in an effort to directly topple the Iranian regime,” Hanson said. “But they would be much happier dealing with a post-Mullah government. That is the most likely path to a nuclear weapons-free and less dangerous Iran.”
That will likely change, however.
One source close to the White House who has previewed the plan told the Free Beacon that the nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, solidified the Iranian regime’s grip on power and intentionally prevented the United States from fomenting regime change
“The JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic,” said the source, who would only speak to the Free Beacon on background about the sensitive issue. “Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. It’s now Trump, Bolton, and [Mike] Pompeo’s job to put this consensus back in place.”
The source tells the Beacon that Bolton is “acutely aware of the danger the Iranian regime poses to the region.”
“John is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you’re never going to fundamentally change its behavior—and the threats against Israel and the Saudis especially—until that revolutionary regime is gone,” the source said, adding that “nothing’s off the table right now if Israel is attacked.”
That said, Bolton is confident that an Iranian regime change will occur in the next six months:
For several months, members of a “small group” (Saudi Arabia, the United States, France, Jordan and the United Kingdom) have been trying to eliminate Russia from the UN Security Council.
In the same vein, France has just proposed amending the by-laws of the OIAC, the organization tasked with checking the application of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – amendments which will lead to changing the meaning of the Treaty—.
The idea is that, since Russia is challenging the Atlantists version of the Skripal matter and the events in Eastern Ghouta, the OIAC might settle issues on what happened and then pinpoint culpability without Russia.
Up until now, the mandate of the OIAC permits it to fact-find but not to go on to make a declaration as to culpability. The organization makes its decision on the basis of a qualified majority.
The French proposition is that going forward, decisions should be taken by a simple majority. This would automatically empower the Western powers and them alone.
Source Article from http://www.voltairenet.org/article201017.html
For more stories like these, visit The Common Sense Show
FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY
CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE- USE THE COUPON CODE “5COMMON” TO TAKE 5% OFF
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DaveHodges-TheCommonSenseShow/~3/Ir4QFC4IwRc/
Our society is besieged by a series of interconnected crises. Millions of people around the world know this and are crying out for change, for a different way of living, for justice, peace and freedom.
Political leaders, prime ministers, presidents and the like are apparently incapable of responding to these demands; they do not understand the depth of the anguish or the complex, interconnected nature of the problems. Instead of presenting new possibilities and working for peace and social harmony, they do all they can to maintain the divisive status quo and act in accordance with the past. But life is not static, it cannot be contained within any ideology – religious, political/economic or social – all must change to accommodate the new. And “the new” is now flooding our world, stimulating change, demanding response and accommodation.
The world and the individual are one. For substantive change to occur this basic fact must be acknowledged; responsibility for the world rests firmly with each and every one of us. If we are to heal the planet and create harmony in the world, change is imperative, but it must first of all take place within the individual. Over the last 40 years or so a gentle, yet profound shift in attitudes has indeed been taking place within large numbers of people. The increased level of social-political participation, and in many nations revolt against historical injustice and suppression, testify to this development. While this is extremely positive, urgent and fundamental change is required if the many issues facing humanity are to be overcome and a new way of living set in motion.
What are the crises facing humanity: The environmental catastrophe and war – conventional and nuclear – global poverty, inequality, terrorism, the displacement of people and, festering beneath all of these, the socio-economic systems under which we all live. These issues, and they are but the most pressing, are the effects of certain ideals and conditioned ways of thinking; they are the results of the underlying crisis, what we might term the crisis in consciousness, or the crisis of love. Not sentimental, emotional love, but love as a unifying force for liberation and change. Love as the sword of cleavage, as the exposer of all that is false, unjust and corrupt in our world.
Society, large or small, is a reflection of the consciousness of those who constitute that society; it is formed by the values, relationships and behaviour consistently and predominantly expressed by the people within it. Such expressions are to a large degree the result of socio-psychological conditioning, poured into the minds of everyone from birth by parents and peers, friends and teachers, the media and political propaganda. This conditioning pollutes the mind, distorts behaviour and creates a false sense of self. It colours every relationship and forms the corrupt foundations upon which our lives are set. From this polluted centre, filled as it is with selfishness, competition, nationalism and religious ideologies, action proceeds and the divisive pollution of the mind is externalised. Where there is division conflict follows, violent conflict or psychological conflict, community antagonism or regional disputes.
For lasting change to take place, for peace and justice to flower, we must do all we can to break free of this inhibiting conditioning and in so doing cease to add to the collective pollution. The instrument of release in this battle is awareness: observation and awareness are synonymous. In choiceless observation there is awareness – awareness of the values, motives and ideals conditioning behaviour. In the light of such awareness, unconscious patterns are revealed, and through a process of non-engagement can, over time, be negated and allowed to fall away.
Through competition, fear and “isms” of all kinds we have divided life up, separated ourselves from the natural environment and from one another. The prevailing economic system encourages such divisions; individuals are forced to compete with one another, as are cities, regions and nations. Competition feeds notions of separation and nationalism, “America First” and Brexit being two loud examples of countries, or certain factions within these countries, following a policy which they mistakenly believe to be in their nation’s interest, meaning their economic interest. Such divisions work against the natural order of things by strengthening the illusion of separation.
The natural environment is an integrated whole, humanity is one and an essential part of that whole. The realisation of unity in human affairs however is dependent upon social justice, and this is impossible within the constraints of the current economic model, which is inherently unjust. Neo-Liberalism is a major source of the psychological and sociological conditioning which is polluting the mind and society; creative alternatives that challenge the orthodoxy, which proclaims ‘there is no alternative’, must be cultivated and explored.
New criteria need to be established for any alternative economic model; the acknowledgment that human need is universal and should be universally met, and that nobody “deserves” to live a life of suffering and hardship simply because of their place and family of birth. Sharing is a key principle of the time; it must be placed at the heart of our lives and of any new socio-economic structures. Not just sharing of the natural “God-given” resources of the world, but of space, ideas, knowledge and skills – all should be distributed based on need, not bought and sold based on wealth and power. The recognition that humanity is one is crucial in bringing about the needed transformation in consciousness. Sharing flows quite naturally from the acknowledgment of this fact and by its expression encourages a shift in attitudes away from the individual towards the group, thus strengthening social cohesion and unity.
Sharing, justice and freedom are vibrant expressions of love, and the crisis in consciousness is itself the consequence of a lack of love. Like virtually every aspect of life, love has been perverted, distorted and trivialised. Love is not desire, it is not dependent on anything or anyone for its being: love is the nature of life itself. Remove the psychological clutter and love will shine forth, bringing clarity and lasting change, within the individual and by extension society.
Finnish environmental activists ‘Melting Ice’ made the appeal after announcing its plan to sculpt Trump’s famous face on to a 115ft piece of Arctic sea ice. The plan, dubbed ‘Project Trumpmore’ after the famous sculptures of US presidents on Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, is aimed at raising awareness of Trump’s anti-environmental policies on the climate.
“We want to build the monument for all of us, so we can see how long the sculpture lasts before melting,” the group said in a statement on its website. “Often people only believe something when they see it with their own eyes.”
The proposed site of the sculpture is still unknown with ‘Melting Ice’ calling for other activists to help them scout for a location. If the group achieves its funding goal, a team of world-leading Finnish and Mongolian ice sculptors will be put to work carving the president’s coiffed head.
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012
Trump has long denied climate change is man made. In 2012, he infamously stated that the phenomenon is a hoax created by the Chinese to hurt America’s manufacturing economy. He later denied making the claim but did take the US out of the Paris climate agreement which was signed by his predecessor Barack Obama in 2015.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!