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