A Message to ‘Digital Soldiers’ Defending the Scientific Method
Principia Scientific International is a UK registered non-profit and avoids making party political comments. But we do want to share a message from an impeccable source for all you ‘digital soldiers‘ working so hard to spread truth and expose falsity in science and medicine.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Tom O
| #
Knowledge is power. Interesting concept, but sadly, not as much so as it used to be. It appears there is a limitation on the amount of knowledge that is needed to generate gridlock of the mind. It is a very low level of knowledge, repeated often. And no matter how hard you try, offering greater knowledge can not change the mind of those that have reached mental gridlock.
Knowledge is power only if from the very beginning of education, that is what you are taught. We have generations of people that aren’t taught seeking knowledge is the way, but thinking the way we teach is the way. As long as you follow the course of how we think YOU should think, knowledge is not necessary, and it only gets in your way of enjoying your life. Lack of knowledge is power.
I agree with the general. Don’t get me wrong. I am only stating what my observations have shown me. We live in a society where knowledge isn’t necessary, and in fact, gives us the “false need” to understand, and that will interfere with our acceptance of what life is supposed to be. It interferes with the basic human right to allow others to think for us and therefore take that burden from our shoulders. To allow us to sink into our digital society where there is no real feeling and we are safe.
That is why there is no outcry over Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple controlling what we see. Knowledge is threatening when it is not what we want. Sadly, too much of the technological progress made since the computer revolution has turned out to be weaponized against us instead of being our “magic carpet ride.” I wonder, is there REALLY a road back to “the old normal of 40 years ago” when people were taught to thirst for knowledge for the western world?
It isn’t because the world is more complex, it isn’t, but it is presented in specialized terminology to make it seem to be far beyond what the average person can ever hope to understand. And it is this preponderance of idiomatic speech, this intentional attempt to mystify, and the underlying belief that all things are represented by mathematical equation, that is leading us to not want to seek knowledge at all as it causes our heads to hurt, and is leading the western world to a dead end.
Reply
Binra
| #
Active ignorance is believed knowledge.
The illusion of power operates in ignorance of truth.
When the power of illusion is given priority over appreciation and acceptance of truth, corruption operates the substitute for truth as a struggle for power, a right to decide truth, a mind framed in its own circular reasoning set against itself.
Knowledge about anything can substitute as a mind of augmented replacement for knowing what is and that you are.
What use truth in a world given to struggle of narrative illusions?
This question is backwards and will keep the mind running backwards as a tool of its own unwitting definitions and beliefs as to what (it) is.
Truth is not in a body, or object model of distanced and locked down meanings, masking narrative to a world of separated minds seeking power by reinforcement. But evan at the level of the body, empirical honesty can release invested models to ask real questions that uncover real – integrative and coherent answer – which is also ‘workability’ for Life – for what you and we all are as the movement of the desire to be and know our being.
Reply
richard
| #
The usual rule of thumb is when you try to ban something it becomes even more powerful.
Reply
MattH
| #
Knowledge is strength. Ignorance is sickness. Lao Tzu
Reply
Tom O
| #
Blanket statements always ignore truths. Knowledge is useless if you don’t know how to use it. All a person needs to do is look at climate crisis and COVID to recognize that knowledge does not promote anything because without the underlying education, you can’t tell knowledge from disinformation. What may have been true in Lao Tzu’s day, won’t necessarily prove true in a society that has been intentionally under-educated.
Reply
MattH
| #
Truths are often blanket statements. Also known as proverbs, adages, dictums, axioms, and (drum roll ) truisms.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matth,
If ‘Knowledge is Power’ remember that the Power can be used for GOOD or EVIL!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
Knowledge is strength not power.
The power is with the media and the algorithms of the internet media.
For knowledge to be power we need concise scientific articles that provide a summary with references to peer reviewed papers that are evidential and appropriate to inform and guide the judiciary and to inform politicians.
The power has moved to the courtroom. The alarmists are winning in the courts because the media is complicit in subjugating science and multiple hypothesis and misinforming the judiciary and society.
The necessary scientific papers would be printable in hard copy of no more than two or three pages where they can then be hand delivered to inform decision makers and to arm court room representation. It would require papers on the “97% John Cook consensus” and all the topics relevant to climate.
Once we have an international army of informed people hand delivering such hard copies into the hands of decision makers we could begin to observe a shift in power.
Emails are easily deleted without a second glance.
Cheers Jerry. Matt
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
You disappoint me. How can you ignore what great scientists (people with significant achievements like designing a great bomb which worked the first time it was tested)) have written that scientific knowledge is always uncertain. That the only thingS we can prove by SCIENCE (observations) are ideas that are absolute wrong.
Have a good day, Jerry
MattH
| #
Sometimes Jerry, it is prudent to ponder the big picture rather than impersonating a mad dog chasing cars.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John,
I composed the following email and find that I do not have a proper email address. Maybe you might have a better success. For I consider it contains a BIG BULLET of which the General should be aware.
Hi General,
The testable prediction of the idea known as the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is that the measured atmospheric temperature would be about 33C (58F) lower (less) than that measured if not for the presence of carbon dioxide (and like gases) in the atmosphere.
The proof that the measured atmosphere temperature can never be less (lower) than that measured is that an atmospheric temperature has never been measured to be lower (less) than the atmospheric dew point temperature measured at the same place and time. And there is no idea that atmospheric carbon dioxide has any influence upon the atmospheric dew point temperature. But atmospheric water molecules do when they condense to dew or frost.
However, there is a communication problem, which I understand. The problem is that you probably receive too many emails each day for anyone to actually read them.
I hope and pray that my claimed understanding will be proven to be absolutely wrong.
Have a good day, Jerry Krause.
Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Oregon State University,1969
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Your statement should be that the temperature (kinetic energy) of the atmosphere has never been measured.
Are you familiar with diamond dust or clear sky precipitation? It is where water comes out of the atmosphere as ice crystals.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
E. Nichols
| #
Many of us with technical backgrounds, were taught that science was a pursuit of truth. Apparently now it is merely a pursuit of power and money, without regard to truth. While we may not always get things right, we are not purposely trying to mislead people. The education system here in America is pathetic it is clear that people are taught what think and not how to think. Ignorance does not take work, this is what the education exploits and uses as a tool of indoctrination rather than a means to gain knowledge and the ability to apply it.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi E,
The universities have changed from the pursuit of knowledge to the pursuit of money. No longer do the people unable or unwilling to think and learn flunk out and find a different career, instead they switch schools with the dumbest ending up in the college of education. They then have a career of passing on ignorance because school systems only care about credentials not abilities. (I know a recent graduate who is teaching high school English who didn’t know what a pronoun was.) It use to be that a degree was seen by employers as a sign of some ability. Today it’s a sign of debt from wasting time and money being conned into believing the fantasy that going to college ensures success.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi E. Nichols,
You wrote: ”
Many of us with technical backgrounds, were taught that science was a pursuit of truth.”
Who taught you this??? The key word is ‘pursuit’. Hopefully it was not an actual scientist. For a I have learned and continue to learn that there are too many Scientific Educators whom students I identify as being scientists.
In my chemistry courses I taught that the difference between science and technology was that scientists do experiements to better understand (explain) what they observed whereas technologists do not care how or why seeming works. It is enough that it works. Edison is prime example of a technologist as he did not question how it was that thousands of materials did not work as a filament for his light bulb, he just kept testing a new material until he discovered one which worked. But a fact is that many technologists do practice science to reach a desired goal faster and/or better.
Have good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi fellows,
You have been commenting about education; which comments caused me to question how many of you have taught introductory chemistry courses. The American Chemical Society (ACS) is said to be scientific society with the most members world wide. And many undergraduate majors require some introductory chemistry courses as part of their academic program.
And often, when I tell people that I am, or have been, a chemistry instructor the vast majority will tell me that is the most difficult subject which they studied in college. And for whatever reason it is a fact that the ACS has a division of chemical education just as they have a division of physical chemistry, of inorganic chemistry, of organic chemistry, and of analytical chemistry (which are the four major divisions of actual chemistry).
And it is a historic fact that near the end of the 1980’s the chemistry instructors and professors began admitting that their students could not perform the level they previously had even though the experienced instructors and professors were not aware they were doing anything different.
So the Division of Chemical Education began a study of what we might do better. I should state that the Division of Chemical Education had long supplied standardized tests for various course so we could evaluate our students with the other students who took the same test. This is what provided the information that my students were not doing as well as they previously had for used the same standardized tests for the 20+ years I taught.
Another fact is one of my students replaced me after I retired. And this student has been part of the largest organic class (11 students) I ever had (1984 as I remember). And his score was second from the lowest. But in the average range of the organic students taking the test nationally. I had a sabbatical leave the next academic year. When I returned the next year and thereafter, my best organic student never bested my replacement’s score on the same test. And his students of 20+ years have never bested his second worst score of the 1984 class.
What is my point? If you have not earned a living teaching sciences or any kind, maybe you and I should not be so critical of the science instructors and professors. Just something to ponder.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Jim
| #
Geologists were 100% convinced that continents bobbed up and down a theory termed Isostasy.
Then one scientist proposed a plausible alternative theory contending that continents moved sideways, Continental Drift / Plate Tectonics. Alfred Wegener’s theory was proven correct many later years.
Reply
NecktopPC
| #
Is it True that the New Variants are Very Dangerous?
https://www.rosemaryfrei.ca/laying-out-the-evidence/
Rosemary Frei began her writing career while completing an M.Sc. in molecular biology/biotechnology in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary in 1988. She has been a freelance broadcast and print journalist for outlets ranging from “Canada AM” and CBC Radio’s “The Calgary EyeOpener” to Equinox and Canadian Business magazines. She is a former board member of the Canadian Science Writers’ Association (CSWA) and has been a judge for the National Newspaper Awards and the CSWA’s journalism awards.
http://medical-communication.paulappleby.com/bio.php
Reply
James McGinn
| #
The Roof Leaks at the Top
Discussion between James McGinn (genius) and Edwin Berry (meteorologist)
James McGinn:
Edwin,
Climatology has certain traditions that it adopted from its parent discipline, meteorology. One of those traditions is that their theoretical aspects are based on conversation and not empiricism. Or, I guess we could say, the connection to empiricism is suggestive and not literal.
In empirical sciences the experimental evidence comes first and the narrative follows. In conversational sciences the narrative comes first and its significance is interpreted by “experts.” No empiricism necessarily follows. And any empiricism that is externally applied is summarily dismissed if it disagrees with the “expert” opinion.
In short, with conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority. The public is naïve, gullible, and generally unaware of this. Exposing climatology as empirically inept won’t solve the problem since the conversational tradition is rooted in meteorology and not climatology:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Edwin Berry:
James,
You write, “conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority.” Your view is a diversion from the truth. It is a political attempt to diffuse the fact that the alarmist version of climate change is wrong. Nice try.
Those who base meteorology and climatology on consensus and authority are substituting politics for science. You are merely describing how the alarmists turn science into politics but that does not change the truth about the science.
The sciences of meteorology and climatology derive from physics, chemistry, and geology, and they are based on evidence. My post proves the alarmist version of climate change violates physics. Therefore, the alarmist version of climate change is scientifically wrong.
James McGinn:
Edwin:
You write: “Your view is a diversion from the truth. It is a political attempt to diffuse the fact that the alarmist version of climate change is wrong. Nice try.”
I am on your side. I disproved the alarmist version of climate change a long time ago, as have many others both before and after me. My disproof is generally ignored. The same will be the case for yours as the novelty wears off. Welcome to the club.
Climatology and meteorology are not beholden to empiricism. For example, the convection model of storm theory is not based on anything empirical–it has never been tested, measured or concisely defined (just like AGW). It is based on an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. Likewise global warming is based on an analogy to a greenhouse.
Most people are incredulous that conversational sciences can possibly be as effective as I am suggesting here. I am guessing you are incredulous that you can be so easily fooled. You are wrong. And you can prove it to yourself by way of coming to grips with the fact that you never noticed that the empirical basis of the convection model of storm theory is nowhere to be found.
I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.
My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.
Starting from jet streams, vortices grow (upstream) along wind shear boundaries in the troposphere (mostly along the top of the troposphere) channeling low pressure energy, targeting moist air at lower altitude, deliver this low pressure energy to various locations on the surface of our planet, causing uplift of this moist air and what we witness as storms. This–vortice activity–is what underlies storms, not convection.
Convection of moist air does occur but its role in this theory is much more subtle than is its role under the convection model of storm theory. And, in stark contrast to the convection model, moist air has negative buoyancy (moist air is heavier than dry air). Negative buoyancy of moist air is instrumental in the formation of long, flat moist/dry wind shear boundaries that are essential for the formation of a water-based plasma that forms the sheath of vortices–a plasma that literally spins up on wind shear boundaries.
Vortices are the pressure relief valves of the atmosphere. In other words, vortices are the means by which relative thermal equilibrium is achieved on the surface of our planet:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17125
Edwin Berry:
James,
In my view, you do not understand what you think you understand about meteorology. Somewhere, years ago perhaps, you got off on the wrong track.
So, while your comments are welcome, I am much too busy to make the necessary extensive replies it would take to show you why your views on meteorology are completely wrong. I suggest you study some good textbooks on meteorology and atmospheric physics.
James McGinn:
Edwin,
Ivar Giaver states:
Global warming has become a new religion, because you can’t discuss it. And that’s not right. So, science comes in many forms: 1) real science; 2) pathological science, where one fools oneself; 3) fraudulent science, which is rare; ; 4) Junk science; 5) pseudoscience.
JMcG:
Just like global warming, meteorology’s theory on storms and atmospheric flow is a religion. Because you can’t discuss it. And that’s not right. As you have demonstrated vividly in this thread, you (Ed Berry) cannot/will not discuss it.
So, it certainly is not #1, real science. I don’t think you are being deliberately fraudulent. So that leaves 2) Pathological science, 4) Junk science, and 5) pseudoscience. I suppose we can let our audience decide which of these three is most applicable.
There are three blatantly non-scientific notions associated with meteorology’s “convection model” of storms and atmospheric flow: 1) Convection, 2) Dry layer capping, and 3) Latent heat. All of these are based on notions that involve half-baked observations, cartoonishly silly analogies, and blatant speculation.
Convection: Based on an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. It is poorly defined, immeasurable, untested and untestable. It was proposed as a conjecture by Espy, pre civil war, and was accepted by consensus despite never having been tested empirically. It’s underlying theory is wrought with unverified assumptions, like the notion that H2O magically turns gaseous at temperatures far below what has ever been detected in a laboratory.
Dry layer capping: Based on observation of dry layers above flat moist layers. It explanation involves the blatantly stupid assertion that dry layers of gaseous air have structural capabilities. (Meteorologists are especially strict about maintaining the vagueness of this explanation.)
Latent heat: Based on the observation that evaporation produces cooling and the (not unreasonable) assertion that uplift of moist air and resulting condensation produce warming at higher altitudes. But–strangely–this notion is also harnessed to explain the cold gusty winds of storms and lateral flow (“advection). And so, in a desperate bid to explain the energy of storms, meteorologists dramatized latent heat as a kind of magic wand that they then wield to explain all of the remaining drama of storms.
Nothing about Meteorology’s theory on storms doesn’t maintain some degree of blatantly obvious stupidity–thus the reason none of these pretentious believers–virtually all meteorologists–will discuss it.
What is, in my opinion, an even more glaring shortcoming of this convection model of storm theory is what it fails to explain: 1) the spinning motion witnessed in storms, 2) the lateral flow associated with jet streams, and 3) vortices.
Since the climate dopes have employed the same pseudoscientific methods that have been long championed by meteorologists, it is blatantly hypocritical for Ed Berry to be dumping on climate scientists who are doing nothing but following the example that Ed and all meteorologists have established a long time ago.
Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16613
Edwin:
James,
You have done a lot of hand waving about your theory of storms. But you have not produced any evidence to show how accepted meteorology is incorrect. Evidence means data. Yet, you have accused me and all credible meteorologists of being hypocritical.
So, to back up your claims, can you show examples where the following meteorological textbooks have made errors that conflict with data?
Hess: Introduction to Meteorology
Fleagle and Businger: An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics
Haltiner and Martin: Dynamic and Physical Meteorology
Mason: The Physics of Clouds
Salby: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate
Khvorostyanov and Curry: Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds
Please be specific by referring to equations, paragraphs, and pages that disagree with your claims. When you have proven your competence, we and other visitors on this site can have a scientific discussion of your personal theories that contradict data and are therefore wrong.
Surely, if you are competent, this task will be easy for you.
James McGinn:
This is the tactic all religions employ when confronted with skeptics. “Here is a bible. Prove to me that this is not the word of God.” Sorry, but in science the burden of proof is on those that make extraordinary claims. I do not maintain that water turns gaseous at temperatures far below its known boiling temperature. You do. I do not maintain that dry air acts as a flat shield to contain upwelling moist air from below. You do. I do not maintain that latent heat somehow (magic I presume) causes the gusty winds of storms. You do.
Of course you have zero chance of substantiating any of this. But that is not my problem. You believe it. Not me. Defend what you believe. Or admit what is plainly obvious–you have not any critical thinking on these notions since they were introduced to you as an undergraduate.
Edwin Berry:
James,
Your reply above to my request demonstrates that you are a fraud. You claim, without proof, that I “believe” certain things that you disagree with. Likely, you are unable to understand any parts of the standard meteorological books I listed. I gave you the opportunity and you failed. You did not find anything in the six textbooks I listed to demonstrate your claims.
You are a simply another moronic blowhard climate alarmist from San Jose, California, who does not understand science or meteorology or climate. Bye.
James McGinn:
Edwin,
I’m sorry that you found this inquiry offensive. I was only trying to understand why it is that if you accept the Meteorologies convection model of storms based on nothing but consensus you do not extend the same courtesy to climatology.
James McGinn / Genius
President of Solving Tornadoes
Reply