An opinion piece which rings true to me.
Much of what is going on in Syria and also in other countries is explained.
For all those who have become awake and conscious or otherwise put; have escaped the western media pit of lies and brainwashing, the six year long resistance of the Syrian people in the face of the US Deep State and its terrorist proxy troops ISIS, Al Qaeda et al has been a deeply tragic but historically heroic inspiration to us all.
View original post 1,473 more words
The discussion attempts to balance the prolific media support for climate alarmist claims, with the negligible amount of exposure to claims of opposing scientific evidence available to the public.
I suggest that it failed to achieve any measurable impact because it failed to correct errors of scientific observations and conclusions.
The comments on the WUWT blog revealed much, one of which an opinion that supports my conclusion.
““It was not an evenly balanced show. The alarmists were not corrected for their constant exaggerations and flat out lies.”
I intend to say more, but will first action the reblog and later come back with my own comments.
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.”
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
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/newsroomFollow 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).
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 Jennifer Helms
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:
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.
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
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
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.
” 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.
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.”
Dr Roy Spencer UAH current.
Global UAH trend
I love CO2, it makes me breathe.
All are welcome aboard the crazy train — but be warned, the world as you know it, is about to be turned upside down.
Just another WordPress.com site
"The Relentless Pursuit Of Common Sense"
A blog dedicated to the excellence in teaching
Letsgrow Individually and Collectively
Complex Trauma Lifer & Decoder of Human Oddities.
A multi-niche blog.
Critical evaluation of environmental fearmongering
Be Positive, Patient and Persistent...
Watching our environment ... our health ... and corporations ... exposing lies and corruption
They only do good to harm you.
A journey around the world with a medical theme
Distinguished reader selectively reads
It is time
I See This
The GOLDEN RULE 