TENS is falling apart

It should never be this way, but there are a few areas of science that are untouchable for one reason or another.  Questioning climate change will get you ridiculed and potentially risk your career.  Other topics, like the investigation of IQ and differences across races, is subverted to the point that it is hardly studied at all anymore, and like climate change is career suicide.  The theory of evolution by natural selection is another sacred cow that is all too often accepted as scientific fact.  But the theory is falling apart, and more than 1,000 brave scientists are risking their careers to sign a dissent statement about it.

Earlier this month, a long kept list of Ph.D. scientists who “dissent from Darwinism” reached a milestone — it crossed the threshold of 1,000 signers.

“There are 1,043 scientists on the ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ list. It passed the 1,000 mark this month,” said Sarah Chaffee, a program officer for the Discovery Institute, which maintains the list.

“A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” is a simple, 32-word statement that reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Launched in 2001, the list continues to collect support from scientists from universities across America and globally. Signers have earned their Ph.D.s at institutions that include Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania. Others on the list earned their doctorates at Clemson, UT Austin, Ohio State, UCLA, Duke, Stanford, Emory, UNC Chapel Hill and many others universities. Still other signers are currently employed as professors across the nation.

Those who sign it “must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine,” according to the institute.

The group points out that signing the statement does not mean these scholars endorse “alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design,” but rather simply indicates “skepticism about modern Darwinian theories central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.”

According to Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer, the signers “have all risked their careers or reputations in signing.”

The theory of evolution by natural selection, much like climate change, is one of those topics every lay person takes for granted assuming it is true because lots of scientists say that it is.  And like climate change, you are roundly laughed at or worse if you even remotely question its validity.

If you are willing to keep an open mind, consider watching the three videos below.  One is a debate between Vox Day and biologist Jean-Francois Gariépy.  It is Vox Day essentially positing his theory to JF about why he doesn’t think TENS is a realistic possibility.  What is interesting about it is he is coming at it from an economist point of view, as that is his background.  In short, the math doesn’t add up.

The debate goes a little bit off the rails so I’m also including a follow up video by Vox Day here where he goes into more detail and breaks down his line of thinking a bit more for those who did not understand the debate.  It is also clear that JF is dodging the question, but decide for yourselves.  And lastly, another video by VD…the nail in the coffin of human evolution.

The truth and free speech censorship

We discuss the importance of free speech a lot here.  There is a reason it was the first amendment ratified.  There has been a renewed effort to police, patrol, and prohibit free speech on the internet especially within the past few years.  It is something most people take for granted, as if there was no possible way that it could be taken away.

It should give one pause when specific topics or people are verboten to public discourse.  It is often said that “hate speech”, or the speech one disagrees with the most, needs to be vigorously protected the most in these battles.  And that is largely true.  Everyone should be open to the idea of seeing alternative viewpoints and hearing arguments s/he may have never considered before.  Those that think they are doing some greater good (or those using these idealistic people as puppets to further their nefarious agendas) by censoring speech cannot possibly know what is “good” for someone or what should or should not be read.  One’s opinions and ideas should speak for themselves and be subject to scrutiny.  If the idea is founded on truth it should stand up to the weight of critique.

There can be a variety of reasons why one may want to censor particular topics or speech outright.  The type of free speech censorship I want to talk about does not include obvious restrictions that should be put on children.  There are many topics that children should only learn about once they are of appropriate age.

Your “spidey-sense” should go off when certain topics are restricted or punishable by law if they are discussed.  It should raise one’s eyebrows when certain individuals or news outlets are banned or deplatformed en masse by the powers that be.

Ask yourself this: why would a specific topic or event be against the law if spoken out against?  The most obvious example of this is Holocaust denial, which is against the law in 17 countries.  You can literally go to jail if you deny the Holocaust.  Why?  The truth never needs to be covered up.  It can speak for itself.  YouTube has been particularly stringent on banning videos that question the exact details of the Holocaust as of late.  The Greatest Story Never Told used to be available on YouTube in its full form as well as partitioned out.  This is a movie about the life of Adolf Hitler and questions some of the events and the subsequent narrative of World War II and the Holocaust.  Nearly all of those videos have been removed.  Why?  Again, whether you agree or disagree with any of these topics we should all realize they should still be allowed to be shared and viewed.  Stupid ideas, ideas that are patently false, should be available for scrutiny.  They will make themselves look like jackasses if what they are saying is patently false.  That movie in particular does raise some very interesting questions and presents some compelling evidence that the official narrative may not be as true as we’re told (if at all).  It is not the responsibility of YouTube or the government to decide what is and is not the truth or what is best for us.  This level of censorship is on par with totalitarian regimes.  Do we really want to go down this road?

I did a cursory search this past week of many conspiracy theories that one hears about.  You used to be able to find countless videos on all of these topics.  Videos about Holocaust denial, Sandy Hook, Vegas, and the Parkland shooting conspiracy theories are nearly impossible to find now on YouTube.  Videos questioning the age of the pyramids and chem trails have been greatly reduced as well.  Many of these theories are patently ridiculous (looking at you, flat-earthers).  But you know what?  They should still be put up.  I’d be interested to hear their point of view and consider what they’re putting out there.  If it’s absurd they subject themselves to ridicule.  But maybe they’ll present different viewpoints or evidence not considered before.  And again, it’s not YouTube’s place to decide what is and is not acceptable for our viewing consumption.  The videos that were left on those topics were from YouTube approved sources like mainstream news outlets; hardly the institutions that will ever truly question the narrative.  Somewhat surprisingly, you can still find a decent amount of moon landing hoax conspiracy theory videos on YouTube…for now.  Not surprisingly, users exposing the pedophelia epidemic in DC and Hollywood like David Seaman and Jamie Dlux are banned outright or given strikes (and likely soon to be banned).

It gets worse.  This isn’t restricted just to historical or current events.  Questioning the validity of some scientific claims is now punishable too.  In Australia, you can now be thrown in jail for up to 10 years for speaking about the dangers of vaccines.  Why?  Isn’t that mildly suspicious?  If vaccines are so safe for us why should it be against the law to question their validity?  Especially in light of the fact that more than 50% of scientific studies cannot be reproduced by their peers.  We should be questioning scientific data and results more than ever now.  How long will it be before it’s against the law to question our contribution to climate change?

Whatever dark forces are conspiring to keep these topics off limits are doing themselves a disservice in that they are showing their hand and creating smoke in areas they wanted to be ignored altogether.  I, like most people, never really questioned the details of the Holocaust too much before hearing about those laws.  Similarly, in my recent posts about vaccine skepticism it was more of a curiosity for me.  Laws like this only make me more skeptical.

The truth does not need laws to protect it.  It can speak for itself.  Let people question the Holocaust or vaccines all they want.  If the evidence is ironclad that the events went down as said, or that a particular vaccine is safe for public consumption, then they do not need laws to prohibit speaking against them.  Prohibition only raises more questions.

Do not be afraid to pursue the truth.  It will never lead you astray.  Do not be afraid of what you will find.  Often times it is very ugly or depressing.  Often times the coverup is worse than the truth itself.  It is when we willingly turn away or hide it completely that we end up lying to ourselves, and when you can lie to yourself you open the door to darker evils.

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.

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