Science

We are not seeing Science these days. Alchemy perhaps, but not Science. Propaganda? For sure!

One of my methods is to take what I call 'first principles,' basic scientific laws that are irrefutable, hold them up next to what we are told by the propagandists, and then point out the divergence. Real scientists don't get confused on 'first principles.'

Another method I employ is I take the exact words of the 'scientific' charlatans and use them to expose the fraud. The contradictions within their own positions damn them. I rely on the concept of 'mutually exclusive events.' Take event 'A,' and take event 'B.' If they are mutually exclusive, then if 'A' is true, then 'B' must be false and vice-versa. Both cannot be true at the same time.

Still another method I resort to is I look for something missing that must be present but is omitted for some unexplained reason. Basically, if 'A' is true, then 'B' must be true and perhaps also 'C' and 'D.' (Perhaps these are called 'mutually inclusive' events. I don't remember that much logic, but that's the idea).

I am not a scientist. I thank God that neither am I a 'scientist.' I also thank God that I have enough intelligence so as to not be deceived by what is going on. You can protect yourself also. I give you a lot of ammunition (many examples using the methods described above can be found within these webpages).

In my youth, I was not impressed by those who told me that a liberal education was the best preparation for life. I didn't like school and wanted to get out as fast as possible with a skill that would earn a lot of money. Events interferred, but I am thankful. It seems to me that most people these days cannot see the proverbial forest for the trees. The canopy of green over their meager jungle existence blocks their view and stifles their thoughts. A more liberal education could have prevented them from being duped. [Note: That's 'liberal' in the classical sense].

You may feel that there are scientist, real scientists, good scientists, who are standing up. Yes, there are those who do argue and dispute 'global warming.' The difficulty, as I see it, is that these scientist play by the 'scientists' rules. They will fence with them, spar with them, but they seem unable to provide a fatal blow. There are numerous ways to find spikes to drive into the heart of the environmental fraud, but no one ever reaches for them. It is as if there are secret rules of engagement --- only a discussion of average temperatures, or how much ice has melted, or what the computer models say, etc. is tolerated. There is no appeal to first principles, no pointing out internal contradictions and conflicts within their arguments. Why is that?

In summary, please consider the following (which I consider obvious):

• Science does not pick and choose only those scientific laws that support a theory and dismiss the rest. It must take into account all laws that might have a role in proving or disproving a theory. Science cannot 'stack the deck.' Nor can Science ignore those laws that would indicate a bad consequence could result from a decision to proceed on a theory.
• Science certainly does not take minor scientific laws, puff them up, and sell them as major events, especially while ignoring more important laws.
• Science does not hide well documented scientific laws, nor does it remove them from teaching materials.
• Squelching discourse has never been an accepted scientific approach or technique, nor has a refusal to debate the issues. (I am not referring to just Al Gore or anyone refusing to debate "global warming," but a general refusal to address basic scientific principles in public).
• Scientists do not act like 'thugs' and intimidate persons who would discover the truth.

But, what have we seen? Can you believe what is there (or not there and should be)? Why or why not? What observations can you make? You can be more of a scientist than whoever is 'behind the curtain' trying to manipulate you. There are dire consequences for not exposing their lies. I want you to be very sure of that. Do you think that 'global warming' may have been the thing that tipped the scales in the Election of 2008? Do your political preferences affect your science? Mine?