Climate Skeptics, Scientists & the ‘QAnon’ Phenomenon

Written by John O'Sullivan

 

US military – as ‘QAnon’ – has allegedly begun an open internet war against the ‘Deep State’ posting cryptic and anonymous messages  to influence public opinion, bypassing the mainstream media.

[Disclaimer: Principia Scientific International’s mission is to oppose ‘secret science’ and defend the traditional scientific method. The following article is strictly in the service of that mission and no way an endorsement of any political party].

Those of us who are skeptical of man-made global warming are also fully cognisant of what US President Dwight D. Eisenhower predicted for us in 1961 – the rise of the ‘military industrial complex’ (MIC). Eisenhower’s farewell address forewarned that future governments would be run for the benefit of a corrupt elite.

The MIC inflicted on the world a dark age of corrupted scientific inquiry that for over half a century bred an ill-informed, miseducated public. Universities and schools, scientific institutions, professional bodies and policymakers were often unwittingly in the service of a fake Grand Narrative.

The elite’s worst misstep was the loophole of public access to the world wide web given by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in the 1990s. That ‘loophole’ is steadily being shut by the elite. [1]

For a decade Principia Scientific International (PSI) has exploited its own online presence to call out systemic fakery in government science – though we are admittedly a minor player.

It now appears that in October 2017 the US military began an open internet war in the guise of ‘Q’ (and QAnon) against the Deep State. Is America’s military finally acting on the warning of the former Supreme Allied commander who brilliantly led Operation Overlord in 1944 and defeated Nazism?

Who is ‘Q’?   

Video ink: https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/7pkdct/who_is_q_6min_video/

If you’re a low information believer in man-made global warming read no further. If you are a hard-bitten cynic of MSM propaganda, read on.*

Without doubt, under a rigorously upheld US Constitution free scientific expression and technological progress for the benefit of all are guaranteed.

If you buy into this concept, then you are part of grassroots movement known as the ‘Great Awakening.’

If real ’Q’ is US military intelligence (MI) dropping ‘bread crumbs’ to educate the public of the impending downfall of the MIC and restoration of a more meritocratic, open system in keeping with ‘traditional American values’ (i.e. the US Constitution).

The Anons are anonymous users on the 4Chan and 8Chan open online network –  the safespace home of ‘QAnon’ messages – the collective term for the various MI message posters.

One of numerous seasoned experts helping to offer insight is Dr Jerome Corsi (NY Times best-selling author and political analyst with PhD in political science from Harvard). Recommended viewing is ‘QAnon for Beginners.’ But certainly, do your own research and never rely on one viewpoint.

In his August 24, 2018 Youtube video: “What QAnon posts predicts will happen, happens” Dr Corsi urges us to weigh the ‘breadcrumbs’ (snippets of intel) in the Q drops and contrast and compare with the narrative of the discredited MSM.

Our regular readers, skeptics of the man-made global warming narrative, will agree with one feature in the rhetoric of US President Donald J Trump. Both Trump and climate skeptics perceive a wholesale fraudulent misappropriation of trillions of dollars of federal funds to ‘fight’ a non-existent climate threat.

Isn’t this more about politics than science?

Not at all. Since 2011 Principia Scientific International (PSI) has been at the midst of a multi-million-dollar legal war against corrupt top government science operatives. The Deep State wants post-normal science rather than the traditional open science PSI endorses (see: philosophy of science by Karl Popper).

Heroically leading the way on this has been Canadian climatologist and PSI co-founder, Dr Tim Ball. He has written extensively revealing how global warming is the world’s biggest scientific scam; a trojan horse to usurp national governments and have the UN ‘save the world’ via global climate taxes.

Dr Ball’s important book, ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’ shows that in every country compliant researchers were co-opted to provide junk data within secret science to feed the ‘deep state’ climate catastrophe propaganda. Both NASA and NOAA were misused for the purpose.

Dr Ball, PSI and so many honest independent scientists have been hounded, ridiculed and labeled as conspiracy theorists. Many readers probably aren’t aware that the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ itself was coined by the CIA soon after the JFK assassination to ridicule dissenters.

If ‘Q’ (and Eisenhower) are correct the ‘deep state’ has likely held sway over America from Kennedy’s killing to Trump’s election.

PSI offers no endorsement of Trump politics. But we are heartened he shares our belief in the huge benefit that open, objective science (rather than the politicized, secretive post-normal variant), offers us all. This quote is from his inauguration speech:

We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.”

The QAnon message drops tend to prove Trump is at minimum a supporter of ‘Q’, perhaps they are even collaborating. The myriad ‘intel drops’  successfully predict Donald Trump’s actions beforehand –just a couple of examples can be found here and here. But more extensive proof is located at Book of Q (QMap PDF) [2]

From our research thus far, it appears QAnon serves as a brilliant strategic instrument to overthrow government bad actors and thereby facilitate the ultimate defeat of systemic government science fraud.

As scientists and friends of science we merely wish to serve Science per se and urge fellow scientists to recognise our shared duty to consider and fairly asses the QAnon phenomenon.

What persuades PSI that Military Intelligence is behind it?

A person identifying as “Q Clearance Patriot” first appeared on the /pol/ board of 4chan on October 28, 2017, posting messages in a thread entitled “Calm Before the Storm” [3] In U.S. military terminology ‘Q’ means a ‘qualifying entity.’ A Q Clearance is a Top Secret access to a National Security Critical-Sensitive position. [4]

The belief among the ‘Awakened’ is that the military and Trump are co-ordinating a massive, wholescale take down of the ‘Deep State.’

On April 25, 2018 we learned that QAnon is US Military Intelligence that recruited Trump for President to prevent a Coup D’etat (see image below with military insignia)

One analyst, ‘Praying Medic’ posted:

 “39) Many of #Qanon‘s early posts mention Military Intelligence (MI). Because the C_IA, FBI & DOJ have been corrupted, the President has been relying on Military Intelligence (MI) as a workaround until those agencies can be restructured and reformed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Intelligence_Corps_(United_States_Army) …

Among the evidence PSI examined is the detailed 547-page  PDF document The Book of Q Proofs’. It collates QAnon predictions of key events before they happen. Here is an excerpt explaining QAnon’s modus operandi:

This first proof provides a great opportunity to show how Q’s drops work. In

most cases, Q can’t just tell us exactly what is going to happen, like in the case

of the Saudi purge. So, Q drops pieces that can be put together once the event

actually happens. Once the pieces are put together, they show that Q knew the

event was going to happen beforehand.

In this case, Q made many drops about the military (see introduction), and at

the same time, made many separate drops about Saudi Arabia – but never

connected the two. Q even gave the dates a military-related event would

happen: 11/3-11/4. Then, on 11/4, martial law was declared in Saudi Arabia

and dozens were arrested. Once this happened we were able to go back, reread

Q’s drops, and put the pieces together.”  [page 53/547]

However, QAnon does employ disinformation such that some ‘Q drops’ are posted to mislead the ‘enemy.’ As cited on page 54:

Disinformation is necessary.” Q cannot state exactly what is going to happen, he can only “drop crumbs” that can be understood once the event actually happens.

Qanon advises everyone to understand ‘We the People’ are replacing the MSM as the sharers of information.  On page 64/547 QAnon advises us:

Remember, information is everything, the flow of information is no longer controlled by the MSM but by you/others.”

It appears these ‘crumb drops’ are a tactic to out-manoeuvre the deep state players in case online media platforms are taken down/heavily censor anti-deep state commentary (or ‘hate speech’ as they absurdly call it). Q warns:

We are fully prepared that all social media will be shut down to prevent the spread of this information (mass censoring).”

One of the most amusing proofs is a Twitter picture posted celebrating the electoral college victory on Air Force 1 with President Trump and several staff members –  if you connected the thumbs of each of the people in the picture, it forms a Q (see below)

Research the latest version of the book: https://mega.nz/#F!afISyCoY!6N1lY_fcYFOz4OQpT82p2w  updated within minutes of every new drop.

Bait and Switch?

Respected investigative journalist and award-winning author, Liz Crokin is one of several observers who thinks ‘Mueller & President Trump are Pulling the Biggest Sting in History.’ And it gets even more Machiavellian as some analysts say the whole matter for the last 18 months has been a bait and switch to give the ‘deep state’ more rope to hang themselves – watch the video ‘Think Mirror: EXPLAINED.’  US Military Intelligence is a world leader in PSYOPS so only time will tell.

If ‘Q’ is for real (a huge ‘if’ yet for many skeptics) we are witnessing the dawn of a New Age in government transparency – front row seats to “the biggest intel drop in our known history.”

Guantanamo Bay’s Massive Refurbishment

It is shown US Attorney General Jeff Sessions visited the extensive new development at Guantanamo Bay to rehouse 13,000 new prisoners and 5,000 support staff. Currently only 41 persons are held there. There are currently over 40,000 sealed indictments waiting for criminal prosecution. We can only hope some of those going to Gitmo are key perpetrators  paying a price for the biggest science fraud of all time. [#WWG1WGA]

*We wish to thank the current and former military personnel and Agents who helped create this article.

Feel free to have your say – good, bad or indifferent, in the comments section below

References:

[1] Who Controls The Internet? US Government Hands Over Control To ICANN: https://www.ibtimes.com/who-controls-internet-us-government-hands-over-control-icann-2425491

[2] Book of Q (QMap PDF):

Resources

[3] Martineau, Paris (December 19, 2017). “The Storm Is the New Pizzagate – Only Worse”New York MagazineISSN 0028-7369. Retrieved March 26,2018.

[4] United States Office of Personnel Management.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (21)

  • Avatar

    Joseph A Olson

    |

    Eisenhower was a lifelong member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and did his CFR masters bidding throughout his career, including the ruthless attack in DC against the Bonus Army, his repeated prolonging of WW Two and support for the OSS assassination of General George Patton. Eisenhower supported ruinous Nuclear bomb testing and CIA overthrows world wide. His “beware” speech was his Pontius Pilate mockery to whitewash his lifetime duplicity to the deep state.

    “Overthrowing the Kit & Kaboodle” at FauxScienceSlayer website

    “Target Patton” by Robert Wilcox

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Thanks TL – well spotted

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    WOW!!! Hours of work to assimilate the totality of information and as a skeptic by nature, decide on the possible veracity of your presentation John. A bit of a conspiracy theory but not impossible with the name Maurice Strong in mind. His was overt and this seems to be covert and less likely to be believed. The irony though is within Goebbels ‘Big Lie.’

    If you can delete the name Trump and twist this a la the MSM you might get coverage from the Left. This is a war and you need to apply the tactics of the Left of DISINFORMATION and APOCALYPTIC demagogurey. For those reading this is about the life of your children and grandchildren. It is about Dr. Tim Ball and Mark Steyn being denied ‘free speech.’

    I trust that you understand the implications of those last two words.

    Cheers all

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Alan,

      I wonder if John does recognize the name Mark Steyn. But maybe Mack is better known in the UK than I assume. Are Mark and Tim connected beyond being Canadians? Rush got taken when he chose Spencer to be his science consultant about the GHE, global warming, etc, and it seemed he took about as long as I did to discover that Spencer embraced the GHE. Without it (GHE as proposed) there can be no global warming due to carbon dioxide.

      And I have to ask you so I know and not wonder: Do you understand that science is totally based upon observation and not at all upon reason. Is it reasonable that the hydrogen atom which is composed of a tiny, tiny, proton and a tiny, tiny, electron occupies a volume which is primarily empty space. The Rutherford Gold Foil Experiment provided the observation that forced nearly all scientists to conclude that the gold atoms of the solid gold foil were mainly empty space. Is it reasonable that a ‘solid’ composed of atoms is mainly empty space? I lost a minor consulting jig because the man I was to work with got angry with me because I talked about atoms and he did not believe in atoms. I just learned that Herb Rose, the author of several PSI postings, does not believe in photons. And you certainly have learned that James McGinn does not believe there are any individual water molecules in the atmosphere at temperature below the boiling point of water. So, I wonder if he knows that one can boil water at room temperature with a vacuum pump. And the gas pressure to do this is not really good vacuum as vacuums go. In my reasearch I pumped on liquid helium, temperature (at 1 atm pressure) a liitle more than 4K, to reduce its temperature to less than 1K as it boiled at a lower atmospheric pressure.

      Alan, what is a scientist such a Richard Feynman, who has a resume of actual significant, if not great, achievements tries correct (warn) his fellow scientists who were returning to the authoritarian science which existed before and at Galileo’s time. The science which was based on reason and argumentation and not at all upon observations. Yes, they referred to certain observations as they chose which observation to use in their reasoning and arguments. But they did not try to observe everything that could be observed.

      The prehistoric people who settled the Britfoish Isles (if Ireland is part of the British Isles) left much physical evidence of the their intelligence which had to have been based upon observations that can be observed today about which modern archeologists (sp?) have no clue. These prehistoric people were obviously naturalists.

      Explain how the English and other sailors discovered tiny isles populated by humans when these learned what could be seen by observing the sun, moon, and stars and maybe birds, colors of the ocean surfaces, etc. There is much to observe but few try to observe. For it is a fact there is much that should be observed and that makes things complex unless one learns to look for relationships.

      Yes, I am frustrated and I believe Feynman was too. A book I would recommend anyone to read is: The Meaning of It All by Feynman.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Alan Stewart

        |

        I am afraid sir that Fenyman in his scientific brilliance was a lightweight in relation to the most important interaction; human interaction. Here is the REAL Meaning of It All. Dale Carnegie, Interpersanol relationships guru extrodinaire. One quote below and all of you reading should pay close attention. If you understand you all will make friends and win TOGETHER.

        ‘Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving.’ Dale Carnegie

        My information is that Fenyman was within the above in mindset and actions. We need to work TOGETHER.

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Carnegie would have been a terrible scientist. Scientist have to deal with the fact that people believe all kinds of silly BS.

          Feynman failed to understand the atmosphere and weather. And this has much to do with the fact that he was blatantly clueless about the nature of H2O polarity.

          So, Feynman was critical of meteorology yet his own theoretical thinking was barely much better.

          He was perfectly ignorant of the plasma phase of H2O that underlies vortices in the atmosphere.

          The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
          https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi Alan and James and others,

            I agree with James, “Carnegie would have been a terrible scientist.” But not for the reason James gave.

            My reason is illustrated by the Wright Bros. After two failures of designing the wings of their glider according to the data available at that time, they constructed a balance to compare one air foil of one design against another airfoil of a different design. And they constructed a ‘wind tunnel’ in the upstairs of their bicycle shop. With the data they themselves observed they designed and built a glider the third time which worked as they hoped it would.

            But they came back from Kitty Hawk with the next problem. For their objective was to build a heavier than air airship which flew under its own power. To do this they had to design a propeller. And this was a completely different problem as one of the brothers explained. The propeller was not stationary as the wing was as the glider glided through the air. It was a screw which could screw through the air and pull or push the airplane through the air. They could not design and build a propeller, attach the propeller to a motor to spin it, and measure the push or pull it generated. The propeller actually had to move through the air as it pulled-pushed the airplane through the air.

            And it is commonly described by biographers how the bothers argued so violently day after day after day that those who saw this considered the brothers might do one another physical harm. Instead of violently I like the word: passionately. One bother admitted that in the course of these arguments they would even switch sides of the argument. But there was one problem beyond the fact that the propeller must screw itself through the air about which I seldom read. This was that all portions of the propeller blade’s lengths were not moving through the air at the same rate as the wing was.

            Now I have never read how the Bros. actually decided on the propeller design. So I speculate that the Bros might have decided this to be a proprietary secret. Before it has been written that they had not moved anything in the upstairs during the testing of the air foils. Now I, without going into any details, would have at least compared the performance of various air foils at different air velocities.

            But, It really does not matter how they concluded the final design because when tested it worked.

            But equally important is that the Bros did not know it would work until it was tested at Kitty Hawk. This is what science is about; testing (experimenting) to learn what one does not know. This because it hadn’t been done before. After it has been done it becomes a matter of engineering to improve performance.

            Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi Alan,

          “My information is that Feynman was within the above in mindset and actions. We need to work TOGETHER.” Totally agree with you about Feynman and that we need to work Together.”

          Feynman, a couple of times, separated the activity of science from the ‘other activities’ of society. For he did not consider he, as a scientist, had any special knowledge (wisdom) as to what should be done in these ‘other activities’ of a person’s life.

          I see that Feynman’s interest was not to control other people, his consistent interest (ambition) was to learn as much as he could about the ‘natural’ world in which he lived.

          A pastor long ago suggested I read Dale Carnegie’s book and I did. What I concluded was that it was a recipe of how to get ahead by using other people. I do not believe you are attempting to control me or other people as I read your comments. But now that I know about your respect for Carnegie and his teaching, I claim to much better understand why you have written that which you have written. I believe the pastor suggested I read what Dale wrote for the same reason you drew him to my and other readers’ attentions. I do not know what your response to my conclusion will be but the pastor did not disagree with my conclusion.

          In the book I suggested that you read; Feynman wrote at length about good and evil. My definition of evil people is their objective is to control other people by whatever means. In his book, Galileo called Aristotle a liar when Aristotle wrote that he had dropped bodies of significantly different masses from some high place. For Galileo knew that if Aristotle had he would have observed what Galileo did when Galileo actually did this experiment. But before writing this Galileo knew he had lied to save his life so that he was able to write his classic book. To lie is clearly against one of God’s commandments; hence it seems to be a sin.

          The lesson here is that the individual must do what he considers will be right in God’s greater plan.

          What was God’s greater plan? “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; flll the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’ ” Genesis 1:27-28 (NIV)

          I conclude that man did not really begin to do this until it was begun by Galileo and his generally forgotten contemporaries Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. I have to question if Galileo’s book would have been enough to found that which we term science without the support of Brahe’s astronomical observations and Kepler’s analysis of these observations which lead Kepler to discover three mathematical laws which described the motions of the planets about the sun.

          Yes, “We need to work TOGETHER.” but that means we must correct each other when we see something being done which is wrong. For Feynman stated something to the effect that wrong, accepted, ideas hinder progress. This seems to be an observation by the nearly two thousand years of history between Aristotle’s writings and Galileo’s, Brahe’s, and Kepler’s efforts.

          Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Jerry,
        I certainly agree with you that observation is critical to physics but I also believe that reason is equally important. Newton’s theory of gravity may conform to observations but it is wrong because it defies reason. If you equate a planet’s momentum to the force of gravity holding it in orbit (MpVp = GMsMp/d^2) and use simple algebra to get the Mass of the sun (Ms = Vpd^2/G) then solve the equation using the different planets you get the completely irrational result that as the gravitational force decreases with distance the mass of the sun increase.
        You need both reason and observation in science.
        Have a good day,
        Herb

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi Herb,

          Do you understand what you just claimed? Do you have another explanation for the cause of observed ocean tides than Newton’s? Did you ever write a book like Newton’s? But you claim you have discovered that Newton made a mistake. How many people do you know that accept that Newton made the mistake that you claim he made?

          You stated that you did not believe in photons. How many people do you know that do not believe in photons? It must be a lonely place to be so intelligent.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            YesI have an alternate theory. It is in PSI under A NEW THEORY OF GRAVITY. I do not pretend to be smart but I am skeptical and never like the force of gravity. (I am not alone that.) Is my algebra wrong? What is your explanation to dispute my claim? My math is simple why hasn’t anybody raised the question in the last 400 years? It is because physicist treat well known physicists as prophets who are not to be questioned.
            You claim to be interested in observation but what observation do you have supporting the photon and the constant speed of light? (Do not claim the Michelson Morley experiment. The negative results of results of an experiment based on a theory known to be wrong proves nothing.) Another article, A DISCUSSION OF LIGHT, explains my objection to the photon
            Have a good day’
            Herb.

      • Avatar

        John O'Sullivan

        |

        Jerry, am fully aware of Mark Steyn and the similarities in his trials and tribulations versus litigious climate fraudster Michael Mann compared to our own Tim Ball.

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi John and Alan,

          Maybe the Mark Steyn I am aware of is not the Mark Steyn I believe I know about and if it is I do not know of his troubles to which you, John, refer. The Mark Steyn with whom I claim to be familiar substitutes for Rush Limbaugh on his radio show. So if it is same Mark Steyn please inform me of what his troubles were (either by email or here).

          Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Alan Stewart

      |

      Righto John,
      Here’s the link you want that tells the tale. Mark has the perfect combination of intelligence and wit. One of my heroes.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvEw4m-QfjM

      • Avatar

        John O'Sullivan

        |

        nice link, thanks Alan

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    Everybody reading please listen,
    As mama used to say: ‘Its time to read the riot act.’ There are many within the scientific community that do not understand the word TACT. Many do not understand the difference between the words critique and criticism. The first is a POSITIVE and the second is a NEGATIVE or CONSTRUCTIVE and DESTRUCTIVE.

    PSI is in the job mainly to advance scientific ideas, theories and opinions. Comments that I see with distressing regularity contain pejorative language and ad hominen attacks. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!! I subscribe to PSI and its sister, Climate Change Dispatch for a reason: TO LEARN.

    Herb Rose, I’m with you 100%. I’m not a scientist and as a rebel (Trump supporter) I say GO FOR IT. It runs against years of accepted scientific acceptance and its probably for that fact alone you will receive incoming flak but you have the right of FREE SPEECH. Publish and paper and go throught peer review. I actually hope you’re right and will revel in the same manner as I did at 2.00 A.M. on November 9, 2016 when Trump destroyed CONSENSUS. Attacks on Trump and Skeptics are in precise parallel.

    What very few of you don’t understand is that the underdogs, the Skeptics, are in an interneciene war. The camp is divided by CRITICISM where one faction insists on absolute adherence to their theory. The job of the ENEMY is to divide and conquer. War with the enemy, not your allies.

    Never, never, never criticize (learned from Dale Carnegie). Consider new ideas. Do not reject them out of hand because you have been TAUGHT differently. Do not scold your children because they question you. THINK then ACT. Do not REACT. Errare est humane. Make Love not War. I’ve enjoyed some vertical fist fights but horizontal sessions were more enjoyable.

    Sorry, I digress but possiblly you may understand with what Wilbur and Orville were told. “If man was made to fly, he would have been born with wings.’

    Cheers all

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Alan,

      See my latest comment and trust me that I had never the above about Wilbur and Orville. I consider this coincident another of my God sightings.

      Herb Rose just asked me: “What is your explanation to dispute my claim [that Newton’s theory of universal gravitation is wrong]?” Why doesn’t he accept that Kepler’s three mathematical laws of the planets motions about the sun, based on his analysis of Brahe’s astronomical naked-eyes observations are still valid?

      In Herb’s comment are four words: “but I am skeptical”.
      For some time I have concluded that some consider these four words qualify them as being scientists. Being skeptical should only motivate one find observations that contradict Newton’s theory of universal gravity. Without such observations such a person should not be given a soap-box on the basis of “[I] never like[d} the force of gravity”.

      There is a reason that Newton listed his four rules of reason (which Herb considers a part of science and I do not) in philosophy. But if Herb chooses to use reason I consider he should be constrained by Newton’s rules. After most of us consider Newton to be a founder of intellectual activity we call science. And it seems that the science described by example by Galileo, Brahe, Kepler and Newton has worked pretty well for about 3 centuriess until near the beginning of the 20th Century. When in 1896 the air temperature became an acceptable proxy for the ground temperature.

      Have a good day, Jerry :

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      A.S.:
      the Skeptics, are in an interneciene war. The camp is divided by CRITICISM where one faction insists on absolute adherence to their theory.

      Alan, you are fighting a different war than I am fighting. Like most people here on PSI, you have taken a scientific stance in response to politics. You are not a genuine skeptic. You are political first, scientific second.

      I asked you why you believe in convection. Your response was horrible. You are not skeptical by nature. You are a science believer. So is everybody here on PSI.

      The biggest problem in science is that in order to make a living at it you need to have popular appeal and to have popular appeal you have to have dumbed down models that tell a simple story. The facts of the story do not have to be accurate as long as they are not obviously wrong. As you demonstrated vividly with your dull-witted response to my inquiry about your position on convection, humans have a huge capacity to gloss over details in order to suspend there disbelief in what would be socially inconvenient to not believe.

      You admitted that you were unaware of any empirical support for your position on convection yet you maintained your position. That is completely unacceptable to any real skeptic. (You are not a skeptic.)

      PSI is gathering ground for vague nitwits who normally would never think to question established science. That is not me. I would never not think to question established science. This is because I know something that you pretenders will never understand: much if not most of science has been dumbed down to appeal to the masses. Global warming is only the most obvious example thereof.

      Do You Believe in ‘Cold Steam’?
      https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16851

      James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Alan and Herb,

      I have a question about something which I wonder someone who is not ‘actually’ a scientist considers. And because at times I forget this something, I wonder if even other scientists forget it from time to time.

      Alan wrote: “What very few of you don’t understand is that the underdogs, the Skeptics, are in an interneciene war. The camp is divided by CRITICISM where one faction insists on absolute adherence to their theory. The job of the ENEMY is to divide and conquer. War with the enemy, not your allies.”

      However, I observe that Skeptics are no different than the Enemy so I seem to be at war with both the Skeptics and their Enemy.

      Herb, when you propose an alternative theory to Newton’s universal gravitation theory, which has been generally accepted for centuries, you are stating that Newton’s theory must be wrong and all those who generally have accepted his theory must be wrong. Of course, it has been found that long accepted theories have been found to be absolutely wrong before. Herb, have you asked yourself: Why did these now known wrong theories come to exist? And: How was it discovered that they were wrong?

      Alan, even if you claim not to be a scientist, I am reasonably sure you are aware of this general history to which I focus attention. What I absolutely do not know is what you consider about Herb’s understanding that the fundamental foundation of science is both observation and reason. Given your allegiance to the social behavior promoted by Carnegie, I suspect, but do not know, you might consider it is not worth starting a War over and instead Love Each Other.

      How can I or any one disagree with another person, as Herb or anyone, without being disagreeable? Is it okay to ask Herb: Which of the two, reason or observation, is the more important of the two? Herb might answer: I consider them to be equals. And I would have to reply: I don’t agree. Herb might answer: I consider reason to be the more important of the two. And I would have to reply: I don’t agree. Herb might answer: I consider observation to be the more important of the two. And I would have to reply: I do agree. But then I would have to ask Herb: Since we agree that observation is the more important than reason, shouldn’t we, at the beginning, forget about reason?

      Alan, if I did this, would you consider I was loving Herb? Would Herb consider I was loving him? Now in writing this I have to hope that both you will read this and respond so I can know, not speculate about how you each would answer these two questions.

      Have a good day, Jerry

Comments are closed