More SJW nonsense in the realm of science

A couple hundred academics are decrying the appointment of Dr Noah Carl at the University of Cambridge because he expresses views that hurt their feelings.

Full open letter: ‘No place for racist pseudoscience at Cambridge’

We write to express our dismay at the appointment of Noah Carl to the Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellowship at St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge. A careful consideration of Carl’s published work and public stance on various issues, particularly on the claimed relationship between ‘race’, ‘criminality’ and ‘genetic intelligence’, leads us to conclude that his work is ethically suspect and methodologically flawed.

These publications, drawing on the discredited ‘race sciences’, seem nothing more than an expression of opinion on various social matters. As members of the academic community committed to defending the highest standards of ethical and methodological integrity in research and teaching, we are shocked that a body of work that includes vital errors in data analysis and interpretation appears to have been taken seriously for appointment to such a competitive research fellowship.

We are deeply concerned that racist pseudoscience is being legitimised through association with the University of Cambridge. This fellowship was awarded to Carl despite his attendance at, and public defence of, the discredited ‘London Conference on Intelligence’, where racist and pseudoscientific work has been regularly presented. Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets with the aim of stoking xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric. In a context where the far-right is on the rise across the world, this kind of pseudoscientific racism runs the serious risk of being used to justify policies that directly harm vulnerable populations.

We are also concerned that the appointment process for this fellowship was not carried out with the degree of academic rigour, diligence and respect for principles of equality and diversity that we would expect from a constituent college of the University of Cambridge.

We call on St Edmund’s College, the University of Cambridge, and the Newton Trust to issue a public statement dissociating themselves from research that seeks to establish correlations between race, genes, intelligence and criminality in order to explain one by the other.

We also call on the University of Cambridge to immediately conduct an investigation into the appointment process that led to the award of this fellowship. Such an investigation, which should be independent of St Edmund’s college, must involve recognised experts across relevant disciplines, and include a thorough review of the appointee’s body of academic work.

The letter doesn’t make any mention of specific references to specifically discredit his work, just vague accusations of “racist pseudoscience”.  Ironic given that science is the exact place where ideas should be presented and rigorously attacked to see if they stand up to the scrutiny or not.  Instead, as always, they’d rather just mute people and speech they do not agree with.

Study into race and IQ is always going to be a touchy subject.  It also happens to be one of the most important areas of scientific research we could possibly be looking into right now.  Rather than vilify it, we should look honestly at the data, even if it’s not what we want to see.  It could dramatically improve everything from the way we approach the educational system to coming up with better ways to place those of lower cognitive ability into roles and jobs that maximize their potential and allow them to still have self-worth and feel they are contributing members to society.  It certainly bodes better than the current alternative we have of people on welfare spinning their wheels not getting anywhere.

This is the danger of SJWs infesting all institutions in our society.  Getting to some deeper truth is never at the forefront for them.  They’d rather can the whole topic altogether rather than potentially hurt someone’s feelings discussing uncomfortable topics.

About that whole “peak oil” thing…

The idea that one day we would hit peak oil, that point in time where the maximum extraction rate of petroleum is reached and henceforth decline from there on, like many other theories foisted upon us, seems too to be greatly exaggerated.  ScienceDaily recently put out a piece that the US Geological Survey has discovered the largest ever continuous oil and gas reservoir ever found in the Texas and New Mexico Delaware Basin.

Today, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced the Wolfcamp Shale and overlying Bone Spring Formation in the Delaware Basin portion of Texas and New Mexico’s Permian Basin province contain an estimated mean of 46.3 billion barrels of oil, 281 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 20 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, according to an assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This estimate is for continuous (unconventional) oil, and consists of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources.

“Christmas came a few weeks early this year,” said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. “American strength flows from American energy, and as it turns out, we have a lot of American energy. Before this assessment came down, I was bullish on oil and gas production in the United States. Now, I know for a fact that American energy dominance is within our grasp as a nation.”

“In the 1980’s, during my time in the petroleum industry, the Permian and similar mature basins were not considered viable for producing large new recoverable resources. Today, thanks to advances in technology, the Permian Basin continues to impress in terms of resource potential. The results of this most recent assessment and that of the Wolfcamp Formation in the Midland Basin in 2016 are our largest continuous oil and gas assessments ever released,” said Dr. Jim Reilly, USGS Director. “Knowing where these resources are located and how much exists is crucial to ensuring both our energy independence and energy dominance.”

Although the USGS has previously assessed conventional oil and gas resources in the Permian Basin province, this is the first assessment of continuous resources in the Wolfcamp shale and Bone Spring Formation in the Delaware Basin portion of the Permian. Oil and gas companies are currently producing oil here using both traditional vertical well technology and horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

The notion that we are going to run out of oil and gas anytime soon is yet another fear mongering tactic used to drum up hysteria that a situation is much worse than it actually is.  Like global warming climate change, it was theorized that we would hit peak oil in the 1970s.  Clearly this has not been the case.  In fact, there are many who think that we’re not running out at all and that Earth is replenishing its reserves.

“Thanks to investment into supercomputers, robotics and the use of chemicals to extract the maximum from available reservoirs, the accessible oil and gas reserves will almost double by 2050,” Engineering and Technology said.

 

A BP official told the magazine that “energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared.”

 

Things are so good, in fact, that Engineering and Technology says “with the use of the innovative technologies, available fossil fuel resources could increase from the current 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion by 2050, which is almost twice as much as the projected global demand.” That number could even reach 7.5 trillion barrels if technology and exploration techniques advance even faster.

 

This information backs up the idea that Earth is actually an oil-producing machine. We call energy sources such as crude oil and natural gas fossil fuels based on the assumption that they are the products of decaying organisms, maybe even dinosaurs themselves. But the label is a misnomer. Research from the last decade found that hydrocarbons are synthesized abiotically.

 

In other words, as Science magazine has reported, the “data imply that hydrocarbons are produced chemically” from carbon found in Earth’s mantle. Nature magazine calls the product of this process an “unexpected bounty ” of “natural gas and the building blocks of oil products.”

It really wouldn’t shock me at this point if this were the case and we had just been misled by those claiming to be environmentalists.

Decolonizing Mars?

A group of panelists recently held a discussion about future space exploration, specifically to Mars.  The event, “Becoming Interplanetary: What Living on Earth Can Teach Us about Living on Mars.”, was held a few months ago.  A few snippets from one of the panelists are below…the entire article can be read here.

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein is an assistant professor of physics at the University of New Hampshire who studies spacetime’s origins and the stuff that fills it. She appeared on a panel alongside Brenda J. ChildBrian Nord, and Ashley Shew.

Gizmodo: What does decolonizing Mars mean to you?

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein: I’m trying to think carefully about what our relationship to Mars should be, and whether we can avoid reproducing deeply entrenched colonial behaviors as we seek to better understand our Solar System. This includes thinking about why our language for developing understandings of environments that are new to us tends to still be colonial: “colonizing Mars” and “exploring” and “developing,” for example. These are deeply fraught terms that have traditionally referred to problematic behaviors by imperialists with those that we would call “indigenous” and “people of color” often on the receiving end of violent activities.

Gizmodo: Do you think that we’ve been thinking about Mars exploration wrong, and why?

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein: I also want us to consider that as we interact with Mars, we may be precluding certain futures. Perhaps life hasn’t developed there yet. Perhaps life may develop in future. Will our interactions with Mars preclude that possibility? Do we have the right to make that choice for the ecosystem? Europeans and non-Indigenous, non-Black Americans have traditionally thought they could do whatever they wanted in an environment that is new to them. Thinking about Mars is a chance to think carefully about where this attitude has gotten us. So far, technological “advancement” has brought us many things, including potentially catastrophic global warming. Global warming is a technological development.

I want us to move away from the idea of “exploration” and “discovery” and toward understanding environments as “new to us.” Columbus wasn’t the first to “discover” or “explore” the Americas. He was just a European who didn’t understand a place that was new to him.

Gizmodo: What do the ideals behind decolonizing Mars say about science and space exploration as a whole? Who holds the power, and how can that change?

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein: Decolonization in the Martian context requires asking questions about who is entitled to what land. Can we be trusted to be in balance with Mars if we refuse to be in balance with Earth? Can we be trusted to be equitable in our dealings with each other in a Martian context if the U.S. and Canadian governments continue to attack indigenous sovereignty, violate indigenous lands, and engage in genocidal activities against indigenous people?

I think the answer is no. I think we need to clean up our mess before we start making a new mess somewhere else. It’s hard for me to say “we” because I don’t think my values are represented by how scientists have handled themselves in the past, and as an Afro-Caribbean and Afro-American person, I’m a descendant of people who didn’t have a choice about coming to the Americas. But I am a member of the scientific community and right now, it seems that on the whole the scientific community has not done the work of asking itself about deeply entrenched notions about who science is for, how science is done, and how it can and should impact the environment.

I’m worried about this. Our terrestrial ecosystem is making very clear to us that our old way of doing things has pushed us to the brink of extinction. What has happened recently with the Thirty Meter Telescope and Maunakea makes clear to me that we have a long way to go before science’s approach to new activities and environments isn’t painfully entangled with colonial ideals.

OSIRIS_Mars_true_color

Where to begin.  It’s no surprise that she would immediately start blaming white people for all of our problems on Earth, as if white people were the only ones to colonize or take over other people’s lands.  Might wanna take a peek at the history books at the Mongolians to start, Professor.  Native non-white populations rape, pillage, enslave, and wipe out peoples too, Professor.

But back to the actual topic the panel was supposed to address.  I would be curious to ask assistant Professor Prescod-Weinstein if she’s so concerned about our place amongst the stars, if she wants some sort of mass genocide to keep the population of the Earth at sustainable levels?  Because that’s really the only option if she’s concerned about disturbing the natural habitat of a few microbes (if there even are any on Mars) or a few potential future microbes who haven’t had the time to develop yet.

This line of thinking is insane.  Many of these far-left types place very little value on human life.  Whether it’s colonizing the cosmos or cleaning up the environment, all of their solutions can really only be achieved by wiping out humanity.  Think about it.  Their environmental solutions, if realized to their full extent, could only be achieved by reducing humanity to a very small population or none at all.  The same goes for interplanetary travel and colonization.  At some point on Earth if we continue our current trajectory we will run out of room and resources on this planet.  Short of mass genocide the only way to continue forward is to expand to other planets.

Nature is hierarchical.  Fundamentally one must ask whether we should place humans over some, any, other lifeforms.  Of course, we do this every day.  Most people don’t think twice about squashing a bug in their home or how their burger was prepared.  That is life.  Life consumes other life.  Some lifeforms excel while others become extinct.  I truly believe many of these people think that humans are no better than an insect or microbe, in which case they are severely sick and against life.  Hoping for the demise of one’s own species is not healthy.  Whether they’d term it in that exact way or not doesn’t matter; this is ultimately what they believe if they draw such conclusions as those on this panel.  Again, they’re discussing whether it’s right to colonize planets that don’t even appear to have any life on them, let alone intelligent life.  Sorry, shame on me for ranking life at all.  I shouldn’t be “othering” like that.

The science community is very heavily SJW infested

Social justice warriors have infiltrated nearly every institution.  I’ve recommended both books before but cannot recommend them enough: Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie and SJWs Always Double Down are required reading for anyone working in the corporate environment these days.  More often than not they will infiltrate the HR department and work their corrosive ideology from there into everything.  We know they have ravished college campuses.  Sadly, they’ve made quite the mark in the sciences as well.  I stumbled across this tweet from @nature, the official twitter of the well-known journal:

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 12.10.25 PM

Nature, supposedly one of the most respected science journals out there, says that calling someone a male or a female depending on if they have a penis or vagina is not rooted in science.  Sigh.

This is one of the many strategies the globalists employ to bend us to their will.  These proud atheists who smugly cross their arms and pretend to know everything will constantly claim to use science as their end all/be all argument.  Unfortunately for them, the science often does not match up with their beliefs.  In these cases, why not just change the science or publish BS?  Once it’s in a scientific journal they view it as irrefutable, set in stone, almost…like a religious dogma?  Spare them the argument that science has a replication problem, meaning many of these studies cannot actually be reproduced and independently verified by another group.  Whether it’s social sciences or climate science they will try and use these as iron-clad proof of their positions, ready to cry “SCIENCE DENIER!” at any sign of one questioning them.

Of course, we are not science deniers.  And as one should do with science, we question the results.  As we should, frequently.  The scientific method is the framework to rigorously test hypotheses and correct where needed.  This new fad of pretending that gender is a social construct has gone too far.  And now that they’ve drummed up a study here and there, once it is published they will use it as irrefutable fact to further their agenda.

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 12.36.19 PM.png

There’s no question diversity is a strength, I read it in a science journal!

The reality is that it’s shockingly easy to get a social science paper published.  Check out this video below, two guys who got several papers published and roundly critically acclaimed…stuff they totally made up to sound as ridiculous as possible and still got them in.

Once the SJWs get their hooks in deep enough, that’s when they’ll reveal their true colors.  When it gets to the point that you cannot question what they are doing lest you want to lose your job for being a Nazi-racist-literally Hitler-such and such it is all over.  And yes, it does get that bad.  Didn’t you always want your science journals to be politically motivated, foisting their personal opinions and beliefs on you?

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 12.35.45 PM

Critics slam new test that can predict risk of low IQ in embryos

The mob has found a new issue to scream about, this time with embryo testing.  Via Daily Mail:

IVF clinics may soon use a controversial screening technique to get rid of embryos which are likely to grow up with low IQs.

A company in the US offering tests which can pick out ‘mental disabilities’ – and, in theory, predict intelligence – has confirmed it is in talks with fertility clinics.

The news has stoked fears about a rise in designer babies, which could be created by parents wanting to erase undesirable traits from their children.

Experts say it is ‘repugnant’ to think about terminating embryos because they are expected to have lower than average intelligence.

And further down:

Campaigners against screening for Down’s syndrome already argue an inclusive society should not be trying to erase people with disabilities.

Lynn Murray, spokesperson for Don’t Screen Us Out, told the New Scientist: ‘If we consider inclusion and diversity to be a measure of societal progress, then IQ screening proposals are unethical. There must be wide consultation.’

Sorry Ms. Murray, but I reject your underlying assumption that societal progress is measured by inclusion and diversity.

IQ-Bell-Curve

I guess this is supposed to be some kind of ethical dilemma but I’m really not seeing it.  What parent wouldn’t want their children to have every possible advantage in life to succeed?  Nobody is saying that we want to kill off mentally challenged people.  This isn’t even abortion.  It’s pre-selecting the best embryos that have the lowest risk for mental retardation.  Period.

People often times place some kind of ethical or moral superiority on something just because it is a tough situation.  Poverty, for example.  Being poor is not a virtue.  Being rich does not make you inherently evil.  The same goes with something like this.  I have all the admiration in the world for parents who have mentally challenged children.  It surely must be one of the most difficult jobs in the world.  But that doesn’t mean that you’re doing something inherently virtuous if you had the ability to greatly lower the risk of mental retardation and chose not to.  That is not virtuous in any way.

If anything, one could look at it as a selfish act.  Like it or not the reality is mentally challenged individuals are a huge financial burden not only to the family but also on society.  One that we wholeheartedly support for those now.  But couldn’t one make a moral argument to try and weed out mental retardation both for the family and also to society at large?  Going further, might it not be what’s best for the individual and the nation to have the best and brightest constituency possible?  Or at the very least one that tries to raise the lowest levels of IQ in the nation?  Read The Bell Curve, probably the best (and most easily readable) book on the topic of IQ in American society.  IQ is the best predictor we have for success.

It doesn’t seem that unrealistic to think it may be a necessary requirement just to keep up with other countries.  It’s not a stretch to think that China could one day require IVF for all births, with each embryo being selected for the highest intelligence, athleticism, or whatever trait they’re looking for possible.  Think Gattaca.  Over time that would make a mighty formidable Chinese population.  One that would have a distinct advantage over other nations that did not do this.  It’s an interesting thought experiment at least.

High profile climate change paper issues retraction…I wonder how many will see the correction

Climate science is difficult.  Incredibly difficult.  The argument from most rational, level-headed people regarding climate change and humanity’s impact on it is that we do not know the full extent to how we contribute.  Like anything else in nature, there is a contribution.  How much is the question.  We have doubt.  We take it slow.  Admit it is complicated and need to consider as best as possible.  I think this is where the divide comes in with hardcore environmentalists and liberals.  They want us to take it as concrete fact.  The media then sensationalizes claims and drums up fear and hysteria to make the problem (if it even is a problem) seem far more immediate and catastrophic than it really is.  That’s how we get pulled into crap like the Paris Climate Agreement and we’re told we need to spend TRILLIONS of dollars over x amount of years to lower the temperature by a few fractions of 1 degree.

Recently a high profile paper published in Nature on ocean warming was reviewed by someone outside the field and spotted major errors in their calculation.  Via sciencemag.org:

Scientists behind a major study on ocean warming this month are acknowledging errors in their calculations and say conclusions are not as certain as first reported.

The research, published in the journal Nature, said oceans are warming much faster than previously estimated and are taking up more energy than projected by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [Climatewire, Nov. 1].

After a blog post flagged some discrepancies in the study, the authors, from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and Princeton University in New Jersey, said they would submit a correction to the journal.

The overall conclusion that oceans are trapping more and more heat mirrors other studies and is not inaccurate, but the margin of error in the study is larger than originally thought, said Ralph Keeling, a professor of geosciences at Scripps and co-author of the paper.

And further down:

The errors were pointed out by British researcher Nic Lewis on the blog of Judith Curry, a former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences who has questioned the accuracy of some climate models.

“Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations,” Lewis wrote.

The study suggested greenhouse gas emissions may need to be cut much faster than anticipated to meet climate targets, because of more aggressive ocean warming calculated in a new model. The team examined changes in atmospheric ocean and carbon dioxide levels to assess how the ocean’s heat content has changed over time.

Keeling said the team incorrectly assessed oxygen measurements. Ocean warming likely is still greater than IPCC estimates, but the range of probability is more in line with previous studies.

“The more important message is that our study lacks the accuracy to narrow the range of previous estimates of ocean uptake,” Keeling said in an email. He thanked Lewis for pointing out the anomaly.

And this really highlights the underlying problem.  The left wants us to believe that the Earth as we know it is about to have such drastic changes that all of humanity will die and cities will be underwater tomorrow and that we need to take insanely drastic measures to prevent this from happening.  The problem is reality does not play out with what they’re telling us.  And with that in mind at what point do we just stop listening?  Al Gore promised over a decade ago many of our cities would be underwater by now.  We were told the ice caps would be completely gone when in reality they’ve grown.  Some know they are wrong and have peddled lies.  Notice how they stopped calling it global warming and now call it climate change?  As if anyone is debating that the climate is changing.  IT IS ALWAYS CHANGING.

The second problem is these people never get called out on their BS when it is shown they were lying or were wrong.  This retraction will be seen by a fraction of the people who read the story in the NY Times or Washington Post.  Do you think those who accused Kavanaugh of gang rape felt any consequences or were called out on their BS when it was shown several of the accusers were flat out lying?  Or when they cry for YEARS about Trump colluding with Russia…do you think any of them feel any sort of regret or remorse for drumming up hysteria and hate when in fact he did absolutely nothing with Russia to win the election?  Of course not.  We let them off every single time.  That is part of the problem.

A separate issue from this is the absolutely staggering amount of issues, problems, oversights, and lack of reproducibility in peer-reviewed scientific papers being released these days.  This paper was peer reviewed.  Literally someone who writes on a blog was the one who spotted the error.  And as the quote above shows apparently it wasn’t even a difficult one to spot.  And science should be continually checked, scrutinized, and corrected.  The issue is when it is taken as indisputable fact in some realms when in fact it’s anything but.  Climate science in particular, arguably one of the most complex systems to model and predict, we’re told to obey the elites on their word that it is an open and shut case.  It is not.  And on a more sinister note, how many of these papers are purposely deceptive, maybe numbers exaggerated or skewed to make it appear a certain outcome is inevitable to drum up special interest money?  Do not assume that scientists, like anyone else, cannot be influenced by powerful and rich groups that have their own agenda to make money off of the results.

Do not be bullied into silencing your opinions on this.  That is what they always try to do; shame people into silence rather than put their ideas and theories up for scrutiny and debate.

You can get a mastectomy at 13 in California

“Professional guidelines and clinical practice should recommend patients for chest surgery based on individual need rather than chronologic age.”  That is the conclusion the authors of this study have drawn after surgically removing the breasts of 2 13-year old transmales (girls) and 5 14-year olds.  Via bioedge.org:

According to the authors, who are based at the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, “All postsurgical participants (68 of 68; 100%) affirmed the statement, ‘It was a good decision to undergo chest reconstruction.’”

Since the girls were overwhelmingly positive about their operation, the authors contend that “Professional guidelines and clinical practice should recommend patients for chest surgery based on individual need rather than chronologic age.”

However, it’s unclear whether the girls (transmales) had enough time for a mature evaluation of their life-changing decision. For nearly all the 68 participants in the survey, only two years had passed. To affirm that there were “very low rates of regret” among minors seems a bit premature. For instance, a study of women who had a single or double mastectomy found that they were quite unrealistic about life after surgery. “Patients generally thought mastectomy would be worse than it was, and they thought reconstruction would be better than it was,” said the lead author.

The other side of the coin is that the “chest dysphoria” of “transmasculine minors” was said to be so severe that it affected their health. They often resorted to chest binding, which is associated with “pain, rib fractures, light-headedness, weakness, skin infection” and other ailments.

This seems to be the justification for the authors’ conclusion that “Youth should be referred for chest surgery based on their individual needs, rather than their age or time spent taking medication. Individualized, patient-centered care plans should be considered the standard of care for all transgender adolescents, and referrals should be made accordingly.”

So the conclusion of these “professionals” is that we should listen to what children think is the best thing for them regardless of their age.  If a girl thinks she’s a boy and thinks she should have her breasts remove we should listen to her.  Given that you can already lose custody of your child if you refuse hormone treatment it shouldn’t come as a surprise that California is allowing this.  California, forever on the bleeding edge of all things twisted and decadent.

It cannot be stated often enough that children need time to mature and grow and figure themselves out before making drastic, permanent, life-altering decisions like this.   Teens going through puberty are never sure about what they want or who they are.  That’s the entire thrust of what going through puberty is all about, figuring yourself out.  To jump to the conclusion that you are really the opposite sex before even going through this process is premature and downright dangerous.  And don’t think that this isn’t deliberate.  What they teach in schools today, and how they indoctrinate our children, all ties into this increase in transgender surgeries and dysphoria in general.

Primum non nocere, first do no harm, should especially be the primary objective when dealing with teens who have their entire lives ahead of them.  Instead of addressing the root cause of why teens may be this confused about their gender, primarily the Marxist indoctrination they’re receiving in schools, these physicians seem to be skipping all of that and jumping to extreme conclusions and recommendations.  They’d rather prescribe all sorts of psychotropic medications or perform irreversible surgeries than try milder, less intrusive, methods first.  Or, here’s an idea, how about prescribing “watchful waiting” and see if the patient doesn’t have second thoughts a few years down the road?

As the article rightly points out, the follow up for these patients is not nearly long enough out, 2 years or less, for them to see if they’re truly happy or not.  I’d be interested to see a follow up 5, 10, 20 years from now, if the patients are still alive.  Sadly, transgender regret is a very real thing, and their suicide rates are also much higher than the rest of the population.