Sunday, May 31, 2015
Saturday, May 30, 2015
The indoctrinator-in-chief has been on a literal rampage over the past month suggesting that climate change is the cause of..well nearly everything. One wonders how he sleeps at night worrying about such lofty and pressing issues.
As the coast guard article points out Obama has been omnipresent as a climate change apostle this month suggesting that it leads to global instability, poverty, environmental devastation, harm to animals, risks to national security, and is an insidious danger to general health. He is actually beginning to sound like Chicken Little- The sky is surely falling tomorrow if we don’t agree to the globalist climate change agenda. See bolded “Chicken Little” passage. While most American’s yawn over “climate change” and would rather discuss the bizarre Kardashian world, the indoctrinator-in-chief has done his best to whip the world up-or at least the brain-dead masses-into a frenzied panic.
Yesterday Obama suggested that “we weave climate change into science and social studies lessons because kids instinctively understand the importance of environment, impact on animals, health”, when asked how teachers should approach discussing climate change in a classroom setting. Of course no one wants free-thinkers or gasp, “climate skeptics” slipping through the cracks of the educational system so the children need to be bombarded from every academic discipline. Leave no stone unturned in the holy mission to indoctrinate children with fear mongering messages about a non-existent threat.
The origins of the “settled science number (97% of experts agree) that he continually repeats is examined below. Remember of course that repetition is essential to all phases of indoctrination. All authorities should seem to be in full agreement so that dissenters can be castigated and mocked.
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. President Obama tweeted that, and it has been repeated by countless others. It is tempting for a politician to claim that 97 percent of experts agree with you. But do they?
The paper is a treasure trove of how-not-to lessons for a graduate class on survey design and analysis: the sample was not representative, statistical tests were ignored, and the results were misinterpreted.
What was an incompetent piece of research has become a highly influential study, its many errors covered up.
Some of the mistakes in the study should be obvious to all. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.
The trouble does not end there. Cook has been reluctant to share his data for others to scrutinize. He has claimed that some data are protected by confidentiality agreements, even when they are not. He was claimed that some data were not collected, even when they were. The paper claims that each abstract was read by two independent readers, but they freely compared notes. Cook and Co. collected data, inspected the results, collected more data, inspected the results again, changed their data classification, collected yet more data, inspected the results once more, and changed their data classification again, before they found their magic 97 percent. People who express concern about the method have been smeared.
We would hope that the president of the United States of America does not spend time checking such trivia. That is the job of the editor of the journal, Dan Kammen of the University of California at Berkeley, who unfortunately has chosen to ignore all issues I and others raised about them. Similarly, the journal’s publisher, the Institute of Physics, and Cook’s employer, the University of Queensland, have turned a deaf ear to my concerns. What was an incompetent piece of research has become a highly influential study, its many errors covered up.
At a time when the U.S. military is facing threats on multiple fronts — most immediately, the advances of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, where the terror group recently seized Ramadi — President Obama told U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates that climate change needs to be added to that list of threats.
“This is not just a problem for countries on the coast or for certain regions of the world. Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune,” the president said. “So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.”
The president delivered the message at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn.
The president in recent months has pressed for action on global warming as a matter of health, as a matter of environmental protection and as a matter of international obligation.
He even couched it as a family matter, linking it to the worry he felt when one of his daughters had an asthma attack as a preschooler.
His speech to the cadets, by contrast, focused on what the Obama administration says are immediate risks to national security, including contributing to more natural disasters that result in humanitarian crises and potential new flows of refugees. Further, the president said he sees climate change aggravating poverty and social tensions that can fuel instability and foster terrorist activity and other violence.
Obama said the cadets would be part of the first generation of officers to begin their service in a world where it is increasingly clear that “climate change will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip and protect their infrastructure.”
As for the impact in the U.S., Obama pointed to streets in Miami and Charleston, S.C., that flood at high tide and to military bases around the country already feeling negative effects.
“Around Norfolk, high tides and storms increasingly flood parts of our Navy base and an air base,” Obama said of military facilities in Virginia. “In Alaska, thawing permafrost is damaging military facilities. Out West, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could threaten training areas our troops depend on.”
The post Indoctrinator-In-Chief On A Climate Change Rampage appeared first on PropagandaGuard.
Friday, May 29, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Monday, May 25, 2015
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Saturday, May 23, 2015
The Washington Post tried to spin the embarrassing news of scientific fraud overseen by an influential member of the academic community in a extremely prestigious journal (Science) today into a win by stating “the scientific process worked. In fact, those of us who teach undergraduates how to do science had just been handed a valuable story that we can tell in the classroom for years.”
A glass-half-full view of academic fraud in political science – The Washington Post
A glass-half-full view of academic fraud in political science – The Washington Post Wednesday was interesting for political scientists. Our social media feeds were full of angst in response to the news that a very influential member of our discipline had requested a retraction of a very widely reported finding published by a very prestigious journal on which he had been a co-author. The data upon which the finding rested appear to have been fraudulently produced. Thus, a process of shaming has begun. It is a necessary process. Yet it misses a very important part of the story: science actually worked.
Not much political science research gets major coverage in outlets like Bloomberg, The Washington Post and “This American Life.” The now retracted finding did (here, here, and here), and that is partly because it was published in a journal that all scientists — not just social scientists — read. A retraction of an article published in such an outlet is major scientific news, and to the best of my knowledge, no political science article has ever been retracted from such a publication. And because some U.S. lawmakers oppose funding for political science research, people are particularly concerned that this “black eye” will contribute to such critiques.
Unfortunately, scientists turn out to be human beings, which is to say some of us are just as likely to succumb to temptation (cheat, commit fraud, etc.) as any other large collection of human beings. Indeed, we have norms against such behavior precisely because such behavior is tempting. Were it not, or were we a collection of ethically pure humans, the norms would be unnecessary.
Hearing that scientists are no better or worse than other collections of humanity, one might wonder whether the results reported in scientific journals are trustworthy. This is why transparency is so important: making publicly available all of the information required to replicate the research. And the retraction that has gotten everyone’s attention is the outcome of the transparency required by scientific journals.
First of all, oversight by a hightly regarded professional was severely lacking. The study included 9507 respondents who were each supposedly paid $10 each, plus $2 for a referral and $5 more for the follow up surveys. Dr. Donald Green, a big deal in political science circles was Michael Lacour’s advisor and evidently found nothing odd about a graduate student securing funding to the tune of at least 95K? (Turns out-there was no funding) Also lesser-know researchers than professor Green, found the data to be “too perfect” and began to ask questions. Did Dr Green even look at the raw data and if not, why?
Second of all, failure of the peer review process in a prestigious journal is disturbing. Peer reviews are the front line against fraud. Let’s be frank replicating a study isn’t half as fun as doing new innovative research and so the vast majority of studies will never be replicated. It seems to me highly likely that if you manage to slip past the peer review process, chances are good that your dirty deed will never get exposed. This is akin to crossing the southern U.S.border, where once past the border patrol you are mostly home free.
The Post author would like you to believe that the integrity of science is exceptionally strong. In reality however things are much worse than the half-full analogy shared by the Post. As recently as this past March, the Post showed a much different story about the state of academic integrity with the following story.
Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal
Via washingtonpost.com A major publisher of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of “fabricated” peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications.
The publisher is BioMed Central, based in the United Kingdom, which puts out 277 peer-reviewed journals. A partial list of the retracted articles suggests most of them were written by scholars at universities in China. But Jigisha Patel, associate editorial director for research integrity at BioMed Central, said it’s not “a China problem. We get a lot of robust research of China. We see this as a broader problem of how scientists are judged.”
Meanwhile, the Committee on Publication Ethics, a multidisciplinary group that includes more than 9,000 journal editors, issued a statement suggesting a much broader potential problem. The committee, it said, “has become aware of systematic, inappropriate attempts to manipulate the peer review processes of several journals across different publishers.” Those journals are now reviewing manuscripts to determine how many may need to be retracted, it said.
Peer review is the vetting process designed to guarantee the integrity of scholarly articles by having experts read them and approve or disapprove them for publication. With researchers increasingly desperate for recognition, citations and professional advancement, the whole peer-review system has come under scrutiny in recent years for a host of flaws and irregularities, ranging from lackadaisical reviewing to cronyism to outright fraud.
“The problem of fake peer reviewers is affecting the whole of academic journal publishing and we are among the ranks of publishers hit by this type of fraud,” Patel of BioMed’s ethics group wrote in November. “The spectrum of ‘fakery’ has ranged from authors suggesting their friends who agree in advance to provide a positive review, to elaborate peer review circles where a group of authors agree to peer review each others’ manuscripts, to impersonating real people, and to generating completely fictitious characters. From what we have discovered amongst our journals, it appears to have reached a higher level of sophistication. The pattern we have found, where there is no apparent connection between the authors but similarities between the suggested reviewers, suggests that a third party could be behind this sophisticated fraud.”
So can we conclude from these two articles that those who are committing these academic sins are propagandists attempting to sway the masses with fraudulent science? No, more research is needed for that. Following the grant money however will usually reveal significant insights as to whether the fraud is simply the brainchild of a lone academic bent on climbing the ladder and desperate for published articles or a financed plan through grant money to influences masses of people in predetermined directions. (See EPA study masked as a independent peer reviewed study) In this case the unusually large size of the grant purportedly secured by a grad student should have caused some warning bells to go off.
“Science” is the indisputable God-term that cannot be challenged or assailed. “Settled science says” is the mantra of the uber-propagandist who insists that dialogue and critiques be silenced. True science is never truly settled.
Here’s the news that shockingly does not get reported in the American Media about global manipulation of climate data . Hear the crickets yup that is our news media doing their job making sure that anything upsetting to the narrative of climate change be memory holed.
Never be bullied by the propagandist as he gets all indignant that the science is unassailable and …that is is settled.
The post Gay Convassing Doesn’t Result In Amazing Attitude Change-They Made It Up appeared first on PropagandaGuard.
Friday, May 22, 2015
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Oregon to test pay-per-mile idea as replacement for gas taxOregon to test pay-per-mile idea as replacement for gas tax
Over the course of the last couple of years, I’ve gotten many emails from people asking my opinion of Christians watching “Game of Thrones.”
Here it is.
Of course, “Game of Thrones” isn’t the whole issue, just one example. In general, many of us have become pretty permissive and lackadaisical about the media we choose to consume, and I think it’s a worthy and important thing to discuss. I’m bringing it up now because, apparently, the show aired another explicit rape scene this past weekend, and now even some progressives and secularists are awakening to the fact that it’s probably not healthy or constructive to feast your eyes on violence and sex every day of your life.
One important note: I know people take their entertainment very, very seriously, and any attempt to offer a moral critique of any show or movie will always result in accusations of being “holier than thou.” But to reiterate what I say in this post, I’m not holier than anyone. I struggle with guarding myself against problematic media content just as much as you do. I’ve always been a big movie fan, and though I don’t watch TV shows as often, there are some that I really enjoy quite a bit. Unfortunately, some of the most talented writers and actors dedicate themselves to producing some of the worst garbage. But the garbage is put together really well and sometimes has a compelling story around it, so the temptation to watch can be strong.
I get that. But that doesn’t change the reality of the situation. GoT might be a well made show, but it’s also a pornographic, morally debased show. The porn and moral debasement aren’t less harmful just because the people who put it all together are exceptionally skilled. If anything, that only make it more harmful. Here’s why:
The post Christians, Now Is Probably A Good Time To Stop Watching “Game of Thrones” appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Feds Exempt MRAPs from Prohibited Police Equipment Despite Admitting They’re “Militaristic in Nature”
Hillary Clinton made $3.2 million from the tech sector. Now she’s hitting it up for campaign dollars
Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance
Chris Christie Calls Snowden Supporters “Civil Liberties Extremists” in His Latest Desperate Neocon Diatribe
Monday, May 18, 2015
“Forbidden Films: The Hidden Legacy of Nazi Film,” is a documentary that considers the legacy of the Third Reich’s propaganda films. Movies have been used for quite some time as vehicles for propaganda messages and are extremely powerful because many of the most dangerous messages can simply bypass the rational faculties of the viewer. For those interested in viewing clips of the films combined with insightful commentary, this may be just the thing. Just remember that America has her own propaganda films from WWI and WWII
Review: ‘Forbidden Films’ Details Nazi Propaganda
Via nytimes.com “Jud Suss” is among 40-odd Nazi productions that cannot be exhibited in Germany without the presence of scholarly context. The director of “Forbidden Films,” Felix Moeller, provides that context with this survey of the Nazis’ film output, which was pro-German and anti everyone else – Jews, French, British, Polish. He layers clips from the films with reactions from German professionals (a historian, a filmmaker), audiences today (German and Israeli) and, shrouded in shadow, neo-Nazis.
It’s a sober treatment of sobering material. If the Nazis have been viewed as especially horrific because they arose within a highly developed Western culture, their propaganda films in turn offer the shock of seeing a popular modern form of art and entertainment being employed to incite and justify hatred and violence. Mr. Moeller, who also directed a film about the director of “Jud Suss,” seems to lean toward not suppressing these films, but even their nuance-free scenes of chest-thumping Nazi pilots and homeland-loving hausfraus remain uncomfortable to watch.
This is a documentary fascinated with and fearful of cinema’s potency, but it’s also devoted to the idea of open discourse, a stance that underlines the urgency of thinking about film critically.
The post What Everybody Ought to Know About Nazi Propaganda Films appeared first on PropagandaGuard.