Fnord: Illuminati Blinded By Anti-science

One of the age old arguments that fuels most conspiracy talk is that science and religion are both wrong in some respects. The reason is that everyone argues over religion and science based on his or her own beliefs. Inconvenient data is often ignored, suppressed, discredited or explained in some pre-digested sound bite that is often forgotten.

People who claim that they have awakened or have seen the light are very much aware that all things are in an intermediate state between extremes. In the fundamental sense the extremes are birth and death. All that is in between is intermediate. You can divide it all up and break it all down into an eternal state of extremes and realize that everything that you believe and read is what is fashionable for the time and not necessarily the truth. However that does not mean that buried in all of it isn’t a little pinch of reality.

What is reality anyway? Can it be questioned? Yes of course it can and that is the fundamental building block for scientific inquiry.

Scientific inquiry is a process of developing an explanation of a question in the natural world (or universe) by testing, investigating and collecting data that will either support or refute your original idea of what’s going on.

Of course many of us take for granted that science gives us facts, and so we do not question the programming of those so called “facts.” However a healthy mind willing to question doesn’t mind getting into all of the messy scientific methods to prove the facts for themselves the process of testing ideas by collecting evidence.

Unfortunately, those who wish to disassemble the scientific explanations already provided by some nebulous authorities are now being frowned upon and are now being called anti-science.

The very scientific method used to question data provided by scientists is now being called anti-science, a label that should have every one of us worried.

There are some people who see themselves as critical thinkers. They question some of the data that is being presented as “true” data by some nebulous body that are faceless scientists that give us their hypothesis ion many of the most pressing matters that face us today.

A free or critical thinker who questions water fluoridation, manmade climate change, evolution, the moon landing, vaccines or GMOs are great for generating some very compelling discussions.

If you recall Mark Sargent, who spoke on behalf of those who believed the earth was flat appeared on Ground Zero to make some compelling arguments that question the contemporary scientific views on heliocentric conclusions. His appearance seemed out of place for some people who would not even think of questioning a scientific fact.

As extreme as questioning the earth’s roundness or the moon’s holographic appearance there now seems to be a name for people who have opted out of taking the scientific explanation for granted and has decided to challenge science using its own methods—they are now labeled as anti-science.

A new article in National Geographic gives a list of people who they have determined to be anti-science and most on the list would be surprised to see that according to the magazine they have declared war on science.

National Geographic now has a long list of people who it labels anti-science or to be exact who it deems are engaging in a war on science by exercising free and critical thinking – and by forming an opinion which is contrary to the supposed “mainstream scientific consensus” an illusion by the way. In one of its latest issues where the cover shows the 1969 moon landing being faked, National Geographic lists 5 areas where it thinks the science is settled.

This is typical of the way that the mainstream media seeks to suppress the truth and label truth seekers as irrational, crazy or in this case anti-science.

Critical thinkers are now being labeled anti-science, and it is the opinion of gullible science followers that critical thinkers have declared war on science.

But doesn’t this clearly show that the gun has already been fired and that science has already shot itself in the foot by criticizing those who question?

It is ironic that this time around the mainstream media is using the concept of anti-science, because if it really considered the meaning of that term, it would realize that science is the open-minded search for knowledge using theories and testing to discover the truth. Those who want the truth on issues like fluoridation, vaccines and GMOs are pro-science, because they want real and independent tests done in these areas instead of the corporate junk science which is performed in its place.

Sadly what aggravated me the most was how he article in National geographic began by berating the residents of Portland Oregon for not choosing to fluoridate water, and wonders why “reasonable” people doubt science. I would suggest that reasonable people are not anti-science but are rather rightly suspicious of schemes to harm their health and enrich mega corporations. When you look at the facts around fluoride, it is evident that it is really a composite of hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride, and an industrial byproduct considered a toxic hazard by the EPA and used in rat poison, pesticides and Big Pharma antidepressant drugs like Prozac and Paxil.

Not to mention that one of the pieces I neglected to put in my 20th anniversary special broadcast was the reason I was voted Radio Personality of the Year by the Oregon broadcasters of the year. It was a simple question that I asked my listeners. I asked them to read their tubes of toothpaste on the air.

Every listener who read their toothpaste tube, would get to the part where if your toothpaste is ingested, you are told to contact the poison control center immediately.

When I did that, I wasn’t trying to be anti science, I was just curious as to why an ingredient like fluoride would be introduced into the water supply when it is a know poison. I guess that makes me an anti-science trouble maker.

So, it is pro-science or anti-science, reasonable or unreasonable, to avoid ingesting an obvious toxin and harming yourself?

Scientists now accept that the earth’s atmosphere is getting warmer because people are pumping carbon dioxide into the air and that this will cause dramatic changes in the climate.

But only 40% of Americans believe this is true, according to a recent poll by Pew Research Center.

That figure demonstrates a huge amount of doubters and some of those doubters are other scientists that somehow are never invited to the debate as to the validity of such a bold statement.

In the beginning when we first heard the alarm NASA warned us that we had four to six years before the planet would kill us all. That was 2004. Now in 2015 the global warming scientists regroup and re-tool their hypothesis even when we are told that the science is in and that it should not be debated. Man was warming the earth and the biggest cause was fossil fuels.

All of a sudden man goes on trial for crimes against the planet and whether or not it would do us a hell of a lot of good to remove our little carbon foot prints from the equation. I can see the ugly insinuation that this type of attitude breeds.

Before science fiction author Michael Crichton died, he was ostracized for a speech that he gave on the subject of Complexity Theory and Environmental management. Michael criticized environmental groups for failing to incorporate complexity theory in their doom mongering projections of the effects of global warming. Crichton boldly chastised those who inflated projected cataclysm from global warming and encouraged them to factor in the possibility that a complex system such as the ecosystem can and will be resilient.

Crichton said that the psychological impact of fearing any predicted cataclysmic event can be far worse than the event itself. What got Crichton into trouble was his assessment of “Global Warming Fear Mongering.” He stated, “Authoritatively telling people they are going to die can in itself be fatal.”

Junk science and doomsayer fear mongering has thrown out the aspects of complexity theory and its effects on the environment. No one even brings up the idea of resilience of systems and how the earth is capable of adjusting and healing on its own.

This means that with every so-called extinction level event the earth seems to renew itself. It seems that every end of the world theory throws out the hope of resilience.
Michael Crichton stated that environmentalist zeal for Global warming theories. The political demand for these environmental science quests for answers in life constitute a religion from an anthropological viewpoint.

According to him a religion can be a collective that has a core group of beliefs. The collective have leaders that they elevate to positions that enforce the core belief or environmental catastrophe that forever looms on the horizon. Crichton concludes that the collective will tell you that we are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Crichton warned that “global warming” — which has become coerced moral imperative — not only has “little basis in fact or science” but compromised by political advocacy and a “quest for power.”

That fatal flaw for the global warming agenda is, for Crichton, paralleled by one of history’s “cautionary tales” — that of the Eugenics movement. The dangers of a political agenda parading under the cover of a scientific pretext have already been exposed by the agendas of the past, and that cost can be measured in human lives lost.

On Eugenics, Crichton states that “the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.” Eugenics, like the Climate Change, Global Warming and Population Control agendas all sought to control human behavior in the name of curbing a crisis based on everyday human activity– human breeding, human consumption, human competition for food and other resources, and the very air humans breath– humanity was pegged as the problem, and people were killed as a result of politically-advocated action to meet the crisis.

Yet in hind-sight, each of these ecological-crises has proved to stand on shaky factual ground and misplaced, but often well-meaning, concern. Such good intentions have indeed paved the way to hell — including the genocide of ‘undesirable’ human existence.

So, as the story goes, man was causing global warming until results came in that man was actually cooling the planet, that the data was selectively and that the figures were fudged in the well known Climate gate scandal. After embarrassing e-mails were released showing that even global warming advocates were perpetrating a fraud it was time that the controllers decided it would be better to change the manipulating Orwellian language to “climate change.”

It’s quite brilliant really: this way any change in the climate, whether it was warming or cooling, could be ascribed to “climate change” and blamed on humanity – it is also something you can’t question…. the climate does change — but not in the way devious global warming scientists have conveniently hijacked it to make us all look ignorant.

Once again a Luciferian move where you have no choice but to pick your battles and remain without opinion, so nothing is accomplished.

Of course the age old argument that you are anti science if you don’t believe in evolution also came up in the National geographic article. Evolution arguments have always made me wince because anytime I hear the debates by atheists and clown science spokespeople I feel that both sides limit themselves to a rigid way of describing how we as a species found ourselves to be who we are now. Both sides demean the subject matter.

Although Darwinian evolution may provide a welcome alternative for some to the arguments about Creationism, the truth is that we are facing another false dichotomy where neither side has all the truth. The theory of evolution may explain some things well, but it fails to fully understand the role of cooperation and symbiosis among species and the ecosystem.

The whole idea of a dog-eat-dog, might-is-right, survival-of-the-fittest world is totally in line with the way that the predatory elite class thinks. They view the rest of humanity and the world as a resource to be used and exploited for their own personal gain.

They see us as guinea pigs and bottom feeders that use the air that they wish they could steal from us. That is why there is always that rumor that they want to kill us.

Which brings up another so called anti-science idea and that is vaccinations kill people or cause autism.

Scientists see no connection between childhood vaccinations and autism. The only reason people ever believed there might have been a connection in the first place is because of a single study that was later totally disproved. But a growing number of Americans now bypass childhood vaccinations, and the result is a return of diseases like measles that we thought were stamped out.

So why do so many people doubt science? Why does National geographic believe that those who question are anti-science?

One reason, according to the article, is that science is taught poorly. We learn it as a set of inarguable facts. The Earth revolves around the sun. Gravity made the apple fall from the tree and hit Newton on the head.

But in fact, science is messy. It starts with a hypothesis, a theory about the way something works. One scientist finds evidence that seems to prove or disprove that idea. Others pile on, testing it, modifying it, and sometimes disproving it.

People see news of these debates and think, “Aha, those scientists don’t really know what they’re talking about.” So they feel free to choose whichever scientific facts they want to believe in and cluster into social groups based on those beliefs.

When people say they do not vaccinate their kids or do not believe in global climate change, they are not declaring that they don’t believe in science. They are declaring their membership in a particular social group of like-minded people. Those bonds within social groups reinforce themselves and are hard to break.

Finally, the mainstream media wants you to believe that GMOs are safe and wonderful, and that you must be anti-science if you oppose them. Yet GMOs are made with the artificial injecting of the DNA of a completely different, random species into plant DNA. Some of them, such as Bt corn, are made to deliberately produce an insecticide poison to kill bugs – but it keeps doing this inside of you once ingested. Seralini showed with his study that rats fed GM corn developed horrendous lesions and tumors, and other studies have shown that GMOs are implicated in a large number of ailments, such as organ failure, autism, allergies, asthma, sterility, infant mortality, digestive disorders, bowel disease, Crohn’s, constipation, kidney disease, heart disease and more.

These horrible side effects arise in part because when we ingest GM food our immune system treats it as a foreign entity, so it starts attacking it. Thus GMOs cause inflammation, the hidden source of many auto-immune diseases (e.g. arthritis, multiple sclerosis, etc.) and other illnesses like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and cancer.
This is new untested technology, allowing around 6 corporations to potentially control the entire global food supply at great profit. It’s a giant human experiment that could end up genetically modifying humanity. Science is supposed to follow the precautionary principle, yet profit trumps precaution here.

So who’s really more anti-science — GMOs skeptics or National Geographic-like GMO supporters?

It is anti-science to be even having this debate, science now is telling us that we should allow Occam’s razor to have its way and cut the throat of every UFO believer, Bigfoot-hunter, Moon landing hoax believer, anti-vaccine supporter and birther.

hey are advocating that the messy scientific method be handled by scientists only. It is up to them to carry out the processes of testing ideas and collecting evidence.

Don’t let experience get in the way of the facts, and don’t question the little gods that think of themselves as big gods.

They have particles to smash, and aliens to debunk.

They are science; they are above criticism, even though they sound as if they are desperate and lacking imagination to get their politically influenced hypothesis off the ground.

Fnord

National Geographic calls you anti-science and engaged in a war on science.

Text – Check out Ground Zero Radio with Clyde Lewis Live Nightly @ http://www.groundzeromedia.org