Australia Suspends Operations after Russian S-400 Warning vs. Uninvited Overflight in Syria


What a relief! I hope it is the start of Australian withdrawals from all overseas military operations, none of which are justified and which place us in a “war criminal” category.
“Coalition aircraft have, time and again, stricken civilian targets in Syria, as well.”

Covert Geopolitics

Yesterday, Russia issued a stern warning that it will target any uninvited military overflight in Syrian airspace after the ISIS Air Force shot down one Syrian fighter jet that was conducting legitimate operations in Raqqa, without due respect to the US-Russia deconfliction agreement.

View original post 626 more words

Posted in 'WAR on(of) TERROR', AUSTRALIA, Globalism, Russia, Syria, terrorism, War Crimes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

U.S. Scientific Research Enterprise Should Take Action to Protect Integrity in Research


From the website of

The National Academies of SCIENCE – ENGINEERING – MEDICINE

U.S. Scientific Research Enterprise Should Take Action to Protect Integrity in Research; New Advisory Board on Research Integrity Should Be Established
WASHINGTON – All stakeholders in the scientific research enterprise — researchers, institutions, publishers, funders, scientific societies, and federal agencies – should improve their practices and policies to respond to threats to the integrity of research, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Actions are needed to ensure the availability of data necessary for reproducing research, clarify authorship standards, protect whistleblowers, and make sure that negative as well as positive research findings are reported, among other steps.

The report stresses the important role played by institutions and environments – not only individual researchers — in supporting scientific integrity. And it recommends the establishment of an independent, nonprofit Research Integrity Advisory Board to support ongoing efforts to strengthen research integrity. The board should work with all stakeholders in the research enterprise to share expertise and approaches for minimizing and addressing research misconduct and detrimental practices.

“The research enterprise is not broken, but it faces significant challenges in creating the conditions needed to foster and sustain the highest standards of integrity,” said Robert Nerem, chair of the committee that wrote the report, and Institute Professor and Parker H. Petit Professor Emeritus, Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology. “ To meet these challenges, all parties in the research enterprise need to take deliberate steps to strengthen the self-correcting mechanisms that are part of research and to better align the realities of research with its values and ideals.”
A growing body of evidence indicates that substantial percentages of published results in some fields are not reproducible, the report says, noting that this is a complex phenomenon and much remains to be learned. While a certain level of irreproducibility due to unknown variables or errors is a normal part of research, data falsification and detrimental research practices — such as inappropriate use of statistics or after-the-fact fitting of hypotheses to previously collected data — apparently also play a role. In addition, new forms of detrimental research practices are appearing, such as predatory journals that do little or no editorial review or quality control of papers while charging authors substantial fees. And the number of retractions of journal articles has increased, with a significant percentage of those retractions due to research misconduct. The report cautions, however, that this increase does not necessarily indicate that the incidence of misconduct is increasing, as more-vigilant scrutiny by the community may be a contributing factor.

The report endorses the definition of scientific misconduct proposed in the 1992 Academies report Responsible Science: “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reporting research.” However, many practices that have until now been categorized as “questionable” research practices – for example, misleading use of statistics that falls short of falsification, and failure to retain research data — should be recognized as “detrimental” research practices, the new report says.

What a gem of an article, because of its revealing nature and its admission of serious failures in the current scientific world to produce accurate and meaningful information. It does not touch on either examples or on probable agendas that have brought about this corrupted science outcome, but there is plenty on this, and many associated blogs, to fill that space.

Perhaps the catastrophic global warming movement is an obvious example.

It is heartening to see that all main sciences are included, all have much to regret and redress.

Two items particularly appeal as highlights:

The research enterprise is not broken, …” Interesting to consider the definition of “broken”. IMHO it is close to it, at least seriously flawed.

…protect whistleblowers, ”  Again, IMHO, this is such an important aspect of establishing acceptable integrity standards.

How I love this article!!!!

The complete article is linked here and ends with the following:

Sara Frueh, Media Officer
Joshua Blatt, Media Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail news@nas.edu
national-academies.org/newsroom

Follow us on Twitter at @theNASEM

Copies of Fostering Integrity in Research are available from the National Academies Press on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu or by calling 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

Posted in Corruption | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Next Generation Science Standards: A Model of Mediocrity


I suggest that this is the crux of the matter! The matter of meaningful and effective education which surely is becoming more and more obviously destroyed, or at the very least, weakened. Even adulterated, by political influences and other agendas.

There are many reasons to question the path being followed by American culture and its global behaviour, but education lies at the foot of the future and that is the matter at hand.

Is this a problem for Australians to consider? As we historically follow American ways without independent consideration of our own issues and responsibilities, it seems likely! There may be logical reasons for such subservience, but the consequences should not be ignored.  Compromises are always an option.

In this case of science education, how should this trend be assessed? Is it natural evolution in education mistakenly considered to be a progressive improvement by inadequate people, or is it a deliberate ‘dumbing down’ of society? There has to be a logical reason for the retrograde trend.

From ‘Truth in American Education‘, this article by

The newest wave of national, top-down standards is the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), now adopted in 14 states.  While there are some outspoken critics of NGSS, the outcry has not been as loud as that against the math and English language arts common core standards, most likely because science standards do not cause angst at the dinner table in the evenings between parents and kids like the fuzzy math of common core.

The NGSS are performance rather than content standards.  This means that projects rule the day, allowing the teacher to be more of a “guide on the side” who oversees group projects.  Actual knowledge of content is not the goal of NGSS, which is a chief concern among critics of NGSS.  Furthermore, the NGSS are severely deficient in high school sciences that would support science, technology, math and engineering (STEM) fields.

Here are some of the glaring problems with the NGSS:

  • There are not enough chemistry standards for a stand-alone high school chemistry course.

  • High school physics is absent.

  • The high school engineering standards would require some high school physics and higher level mathematics than is expected in the aligned common core math standards; therefore, the engineering standards are low level.

  • The human body is missing.

  • Essential life science concepts are absent, such as “bacteria” and “virus”; cytology (design and function of cells) is woefully lacking with no mention of protein structure or functions, cellular feedback mechanisms, or cell and tissue types.

  • Practical everyday science, such as electrical circuits, is given only brief mention in the lower grade levels, while the more politically charged subject of climate change is very prominent.

  • More than 50% of the science standards have an “assessment boundary” which specifically state what will not or should not be tested, creating a teach-to-the-test mentality.

  • More than 90% of the standards have a “clarification statement” which reads like a Standards for Dummies explanation on how exactly to teach the standard, including what to say to students and which examples to provide (detailed prompting).

  • Evolution is given prominence in the standards, to the exclusion of other important content.

  • Many of the standards are based on junk science, too many scientific assumptions, and correlational studies.

  • The Thomas B. Fordham Institute conducted a review of the NGSS and 55 sets of other standards from around the country.  While Fordham would be expected to rate the NGSS highly because of their prior defense of common core, they rated NGSS as 26th in the total list of 56 standards.  Translation:  NGSS are just average.   Mediocre

The complete article is linked here.

A relevant reference:

Posted in AGENDA 21, Science, World Issues | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

130 German scientists skeptical of UN IPCC and the global warming agenda


A balancing of the ‘consensus ledger’.
The claim of 97% consensus on man-made warming being a danger is totally unsupportable scientifically.
There are hundreds of scientists qualified to make valid judgments who are highly critical of the ‘war’ on CO2.
Here are some of them.

budbromley

Open Letter – Climate Change (translated from German)

Bundeskanzleramt

Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel

Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1

10557 Berlin

Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a

E-mail: limburg@grafik-system.de

Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them…

View original post 1,654 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Cannabis and our body


Plenty of health topics and posts on this blog, but nothing quite like this.

Comments from learned medical readers would be appreciated.

https://www.facebook.com/drbob.melamede

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The vision of technocracy


An understanding of globalism. Easy to read and follow.
Simplified, but a good starting point for those not quite sure what is going on in this Orwellian world.
Knowing that this is reality is helpful for greater understanding.

Jon Rappoport's Blog

The vision of technocracy

by Jon Rappoport

May 24, 2017

“Well, boys, we’ve got this strange thing called THE INDIVIDUAL. Could somebody tell me what he is? He’s not conforming to our algorithms. He’s all over the place. And while we’re at it, what the hell is this IMAGINATION? It keeps slipping out of our grasp, it doesn’t fit the plan…”

PART ONE

—Technocrats say they want to wipe out poverty, war, and inequality. But in order to achieve these lofty goals (or pretend to), they need to re-program humans—

Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.

Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.

This is a highly complex piece of equipment.

On one level, workers are…

View original post 1,328 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Study: Brainwash the Next Generation to Promote Climate Action


” We know humans are causing climate change. That is a fact that has been known for well over 100 years. ”
This says it all – a blatant lie!
Educate yourself.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Greens have finally worked out how to promote climate action: Create more greens, by “ingraining” children with their worldview.

Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think

People have to grasp how climate change impacts them, and we need to value environmentally sound behavior

John Abraham
Friday 19 May 2017 20.00 AEST

We know humans are causing climate change. That is a fact that has been known for well over 100 years. We also know that there will be significant social and economic costs from the effects. In fact, the effects are already appearing in the form of more extreme weather, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and so on.

So why haven’t humans done much about the problem? Answering that question may be more challenging than the basic science of a changing climate. Fortunately, a new review just out in…

View original post 506 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Two Competing Narratives on Carbon Dioxide


Worth reading, and thinking about!
“So is carbon dioxide our friend or our foe? As set out above, in some ways it is (or could be) the one and in some ways it is (or could be) the other. The vast majority of the public not only do not understand these scientific differences, they positively don’t want to have to understand these scientific differences. As Richard Lindzen has said, ‘Most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with the science.’ Instead they will form their view on the climate change debate almost exclusively on how they feel about it based primarily on the narrative spun in the media (a narrative that is utterly dominated by the propaganda of the climate change alarmists). As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, ‘The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.’ This is why endlessly repeated simplistic soundbites like ‘climate change is man-made and dangerous’ and ‘the science is settled’ and ‘97% of scientists agree’ have been so powerful. Is there any real truth in these statements? It doesn’t matter – just keep repeating them.”

Watts Up With That?

Is carbon dioxide our friend or our foe?

Guest essay by Iain Aitken

Here is a dossier of key facts about carbon dioxide (and its role in global warming):

· It is an incombustible, colourless, odourless, tasteless and non-toxic gas

· It is a plant nutrient and, as the ‘fuel’ of photosynthesis and the creation of oxygen, it is absolutely essential to the existence of life on Earth

· Its fertilisation effect has meant that, thanks to our anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions increasing concentrations in the atmosphere, crop yields have improved dramatically to date and will continue to improve in the future

· It is a weak greenhouse gas

· Global warming precedes, and then causes, increases in carbon dioxide emissions

· Most global warming experienced since 1950 can be attributed to natural climate variability, rather than enhanced greenhouse gas warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore the rate of…

View original post 1,485 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’


Makes a lot of sense.

When we see public marches supporting some scientific issue, it suggests a degree of desperation. One wonders what could possibly be wrong with the “science” if it does not stand proudly on its own merits?

Too many people are able to see when science is being adulterated and used for a  political agenda and it is apparently hoped that public marches will counter their influence.

Science has its logical basis and departures from logic cannot be ignored.

From ‘The Stream

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd.

This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as much early on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage.

If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists.

How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other.

“Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink?

When can you doubt a consensus? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus.

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternatives to their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger.

We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored.

So how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion. But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery.

Read the whole article here. It is most educational.

Posted in AGENDA 21, AGW, Conspiracies, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Science | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

CO2 ≠ Pollutant


Some impressive facts for alarmists to think about.
Perhaps the eugenics enthusiasts have got it right, if humans are in fact the biggest CO2 sources of all?
But only if CO2 is in fact a pollutant, which it is scientifically proven not to be.
At last the facts are becoming clearer for the public to understand.
Soon the whole truth will be understood.

Science Matters

My university degree is a Bachelors in Organic Chemistry from Stanford. For that and other reasons, it always annoyed me that some lawyers decided CO2 can be called a “pollutant”, all the while exhaling the toxic gas themselves.

This nonsense forms the root of all the ridiculous regulations that POTUS ordered reviewed and rescinded yesterday. Thus I agree completely with this Wall Street Journal article by Paul Tice Trump’s Next Step on Climate Change. Full text below.

Reconsider the EPA’s labeling of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, based on now-outdated science.

By PAUL H. TICE
March 28, 2017 6:41 p.m. ET

The executive orders on climate change President Trump signed this week represent a step in the right direction for U.S. energy policy and, importantly, deliver on Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to roll back burdensome regulations affecting American companies. But it will take more than the stroke of a…

View original post 810 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments