EVERYTHING IS RIGGED: Medicine, science, elections, the media, money, education, search engines, social media… you are living in a fabricated fairy tale – NaturalNews.com

yoda Unite Or Die


Every institution in America is sold out, corrupted and politically rigged to favor Big Government and Big Business. “America is a lost country,” explains Paul Craig Roberts. “The total corruption of every public and the private institution is complete. Nothing remains but tyranny. And lies. Endless lies.”

CNN, Reuters and the Associated Press are all now shameless promoters of every big lie across every sector of society, from vaccines and GMOs to elections and politics. The federal government itself is incapable of doing anything other than lying, and it has totally corrupted the entire realm of science by pulling the strings of funding via the National Institutes of Health and the NSF.

The FDA is entirely corrupt, as is the USDA. Both function now as little more than marketing propaganda pushers for Big Pharma and Big Biotech. Similarly, Google, Facebook and Twitter are all rigged, too, censoring the voices they don’t want anyone to hear while highlighting the establishment lies they wish to promote.

Read More: www.naturalnews.com/054857_rigged_elections_fake_media_fairy_tales.html

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

climate science

It is often said that non-scientists must rely on “expert opinion” to determine whether claims on alleged “catastrophic man-made global warming” are true. Putting aside the fact that there is no global-warming “consensus” among experts, one does not have to be a scientist, or even proficient in science, to be able to review past predictions, and then form an informed opinion regarding the accuracy of those predictions.

Suppose, for example, you regularly watch a local TV weatherman forecast the weather for your area. Would you need a degree in meteorology in order to decide for yourself how reliable, or unreliable, the weatherman’s forecasts are?

Warnings have been issued for many decades now regarding catastrophic climate change that forecasted certain trends or occurrences that we should already have witnessed. Yet such predictions have turned out to be very, very wrong. This was certainly the case with the alarmist predictions of the 1960s and ’70s that man’s activities on Earth were causing a catastrophic cooling trend that would bring on another ice age. And it is also the case with the more recent claims about catastrophic global warming.

What follows is a very brief review of these predictions compared to what actually happened.

Read More: www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry


Reader Comment on this article by “Richard Urban:”

“Scientist’s, real scientist’s, like myself, we know what we don’t know, we know, that we only understand about 20% of all the forces that affect climate. So ask yourself this? How can any “Real” scientist’s make computer predictions, that are extremely prone to exaggerating any errors, when they only understand about 20% of the topic?

When weather predictions, aka, mini climate models, that’s what they are, but because the models only look out about 10 days, we call that weather, but they are essentially mini climate models or similar enough for my example. So, how can anyone claim they can predict things out to say 100 years, when often times the weather models get the very next day wrong? Why do they get the next day wrong, on occasions? Because all the needed information that must go into theses models is not available, or simply not understood.

Did you know we Meteorologists have to pick between about 10 different types of weather models, to make a forecast. Why is that? It’s true. This is only to make predictions out for several days, imagine 10 or 20 years, and the complexity required for that?

Note: Many times it’s better not to use any models. Often we can beat the computers just by looking at the stack. (Observations in the Troposphere)

‘Why don’t you skeptics download them, study the code or even try running them based on changes in greenhouse gases.”

And this questions defines how a climate Nazi’s brain works. There is only one variable “Greenhouse gases” What about the hundreds of other variables? You know, the variables that are never even programmed into any of the climate models? It’s true!

When weather models start becoming accurate enough to predict weather several months in advance, and we understood how to make computer models well enough that we can put them all together and just have one, then maybe, just maybe we would have the knowledge to create some basic climate models that work well.

I can hear some of you saying, “But some of these climate models have been correct” To that I say, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day, or even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while” Overall, climate models have not been accurate.

The only reason weather models improve, is because we get to see the answer only a few days later. There is only so much that can be done with hind-casting on something that is as complicated as the earth’s climate, and by the time we see if the climate models were in fact correct, or incorrect, say 20-50 years, well then everything has already changed. The people that made the programs are likely dead, so it is impossible with our 20% understanding, at this time, to make climate models. Does that mean we stop? Of course not,

Because of all of this, I am forced to go back to things we understand better, for example, we know how much water/ice, is on the earth, and we know how much energy it takes to alter it’s temperature. We know it takes 27 times more energy to change water temperature than it does to change air temperatures. Simple stuff compared with trying to put one model together, that takes into account all the earth’s variables.

We can use the climate scientists theories on the amount of heat, from additional CO2, affecting greenhouses gases, is creating. The theory is, that the increased CO2 from man, (Which is just a theory, it could be coming from the earth, volcanic activity on the ocean floor, and so on, but I will play along) is increasing the energy on the earth the same as if the sun’s energy went up by 2%. Now we can take that worst case scenario, meaning we are assuming mankind added the CO2 to the atmosphere, and we are assuming that the added CO2 only creates heat, meaning no negative feedbacks, which you can’t do, but that’s okay, because we are just trying to find out if it’s possible to alter the earth’s climate in any meaningful (Or drastic) way, so I’ll play along.

Side note: Nobody knows the correct temperature for the earth, which is most beneficial to mankind. In other words, the earth is now at 288.8 K, give or take a degree, (When we calculate the earth’s mean temperature, we have an error of +/- 1 K) maybe mankind would do much better if the earth was at 291.8 K? Nobody knows this, but that’s okay, I’ll still play along.

So now we calculate the amount of energy it would take to heat the oceans, a degree or two. (In order to alter climate you first have to change the temperature of the entire ocean, because the ocean (average 2.5 mile depth) mixes thoughout over relatively short periods of time, it takes a long time and a lot of energy to change all the water.

We have all seen this relationship, we have all experienced this in our everyday lives. For example, you store your box of 30 beers in the garage during the winter (1 C) then you bring it into the house and put it in the hallway (20 C) , you were supposed to put in in the refrigerator , but you forgot. Half a day later you go to grab a beer from the refrigerator, Crap, no more beer in there, so you ask your wife, “Honey where is that beer I brought in from the garage?” She says, “I put it in the closet” Crap now I don’t have any cold beer! Yes you do!!!! Just take a can out of the middle of the box, it will still be cold enough to be refreshing.

In college we students had to calculate in class, (This was a word problem in the back of our physic book) how long it would take to heat the oceans, aka, change the climate, if we increased insulation (The sun) by 10 %?

Do any of you Climate Nazi’s out there, think it took less than 1,000 years? The way you talk, you think it takes about 10-15 years to change ocean temperatures.

There is no such thing as rapid climate change or temperature change. History and physic’s has shown that meaningful change takes hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years.

Anyone care to break that argument? Good luck.”



Neil Ty – The Scientism Guy | Zero Hedge

Tyson Chicken Science

Neil deGrasse Tyson has released a new video to call out the obstinate, ignorant voters who deny what many regard as certain truths handed to them by a body of elite, trustworthy scientists. Yet Tyson and the marchers border on an equally dangerous view: scientism.

It was released at the same time as the March for Science and many Earth Day demonstrations. He reflects on what he thinks made America great and what’s stalling progress today. Science used to be respected, but today, there is a growing crowd of science-deniers who threaten our “informed democracy.”

The real anti-intellectual move, however, is conflating science, the scientific method, and truth to be one and the same. Fundamentally, science is any human attempt at discovering truth. What is true exists independently from what humans believe to be true or how humans arrive at truth claims. The scientific method, the process of using repeated experiments in an attempt to validate or falsify the conclusions of previous experiments, is but one way humans attempt to discover truth.

The purpose of the video was to call out the obstinate, ignorant voters who deny what many regard as certain truths handed to them by a body of elite, trustworthy scientists. Yet Tyson and the marchers border on an equally dangerous view: scientism.

Scientism isn’t scientific

Scientism is the over-reliance on or over-application of the scientific method. Scientism has many forms, one of which is the use of empirical methods to do economic science, or the dismissal of claims not based on experiment results that question other claims that are based on experiment results. Mises dealt with scientism repeatedly, and closely guarded the boundary between economics and other sciences.

The scientific method is not universally appropriate. Consider an extreme case: if you measured a few right triangles and observed that the sides did not correspond to what the Pythagorean theorem says, would you toss the Pythagorean theorem, or would you reexamine your measurement method? Would you dismiss the logical geometric relation in favor of the scientific method?

The scientific method is particularly suited for the natural sciences. It’s hard to recommend a different method than experimentation and observation to answer questions about chemical reactions, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and biology.

The scientific method is unnecessary or even ill-suited in other areas, however. Consider these questions, and what sort of approach is appropriate to answer them: What is 17 divided by 3? All else held equal, what are the effects of an increase in demand for blue jeans? Who should I invite to my party? What are the effects of expansionary monetary policy on employment, prices, incomes, production, consumption, and borrowing? How should I treat people?

Of course, Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t recommend using the scientific method to answer all of these questions (hopefully), but the point is that empiricism and experimentation are limited in their appropriate applications. The scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth.

Read More: www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-25/neil-ty-scientism-guy