Science Under Assault

John Droz, jr. Physicist & Environmental Advocate 8/4/14
SCIENCE
Under Assault

NOTE: SlideShare has had some issues with translating
presentations properly. Hopefully they are temporary.
If some slides are hard to read, or are missing graphics,
please download the PDF version, which is much better quality.
(Click the “Save” button above the window: it’s only a 13± MB file.)
(Otherwise, use your keyboard arrow keys to navigate.
This will allow you to proceed at your own pace.)

Science Under Assault
The purpose of this presentation is to alert citizens about the Big Picture situation we have in the US today (and elsewhere). This is a complicated
matter, so I have tried to strike a reasonable balance between being too technical and too simplified.
The underlying message is that our technical policies should be based on real SCIENCE — not just on what lobbyists advocate. The problems are:
1) most people don’t know what genuine Science is, so
2) phony science is being advocated by self-serving special interests (promoting economic and/or political agendas).
I wanted to select an opening image here that would give an adequate indication of the magnitude of the threat we are facing here. As dramatic as
this picture seems, it is an understatement of what is happening to us. Please see our website, WiseEnergy.org, which has a wealth of information
on energy and environmental matters.
This will only be resolved when citizens take action. After getting more up-to-speed, they need to do some Critical Thinking about this.
(Unfortunately, Critical Thinking has become somewhat of a lost art — and that has led to serious consequences to our society as a whole.)
My expectation is that after citizens get more educated, then they will be in a much better position to express their more informed wishes to their
local, state and federal representatives.
This is an expanded version (100+ extra slides) of my live presentation that I gave to North Carolina legislators and Federal legislators. A downside
of this alternative is that the live presentation had commentary with each slide (see <<tinyurl.com/bjpnfmk>>). Since I don’t have the space to
include all of those comments, I made some notes on slides where the remarks were more necessary, and added them between the {...} brackets on the
slides. Seeing it live is still the best — and I now have both 45 minute and 30 minute versions that I am willing to give to open-minded groups.
Please see my brief “resume,” the copyright notice, disclaimer, and contact information on the last slide. References and credits are on the six (6)
slides prior to that one. [Note that I will indicate updates on the material by a new date on the first slide.] If you like what you see, please pass it on
to other open-minded people, plus your federal, state and local representatives. I will be glad to respond to any questions or suggestions.
— ENJOY!
john droz,jr.

{I have given dozens of talks in some ten
states, on a variety of technical topics (wind
energy, sea level rise, global warming, etc.)
In my view this topic is the most important
presentation I have ever put together, as this
is about the root of ALL those technical issues.
When I started my research for this
presentation, I thought it would be easy to
cover this topic in 30 minutes. However it
didn’t take long to come up with literally
hundreds of reports, articles, and books (like
this one here) on this subject. What I’ve tried
to do is to distill this all down to the major
points, and to give it some organization.
Quite frankly there are several aspects of this
issue that are a full talk in themselves.}

Part 1:
Some Basics
{My perspective on this situation is that of a physicist who has been actively working on
energy and environmental issues for over thirty years, on my own dime.}

That means there are:
— some who are smart and others who are not,
— some who are reliable and others who are not,
— some who have courage and others who do not,
— some who have integrity and others who do not,
— some who have a sense of humor and others who do not,
etc...
Scientists are Regular People
Who said —
“Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl,
is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves”?

The answer is:
Albert Einstein
Who would’ve thunk that while Al was working out the
Theory of Relativity, that he’d be daydreaming about kissing girls?

“The difference between
the right word and the almost right word,
is the difference between
lightning and lightning bug.”
— Mark Twain
Words are IMPORTANT!

Note how the promoters keep looking
for the most persuasive Marketing Words...
{BTW, I’m going to use global warming in several examples. Am I saying that the global warming
hypothesis is wrong? NO! What I’m saying is that this matter is not yet scientifically resolved.
At this point there is good evidence by credible people that it is true. On the other hand, there is
also good evidence by competent people that it’s not. In other words, the jury is still out.}
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
Anthropogenic Global Warming
Global Warming
Climate Change
Climate Disruption

What is “Science”?
{The clothes you are wearing, the food you eat today, the vehicle that you own, the
building you are in, the lights in the ceiling, the computer you are using, etc. are all
wonders of science. These are based on many generations of scientists using logic and
deductive reasoning, carrying out observations and measurements, formulating and
then testing hypotheses and theories. That’s what most people think of when asked
to define science: things like theorems and equations. But that is not science.}

Science is not
a collection of Theorems
E = MC (Einstein's Theory of Relativity)
F = G (Newton’s Law of Gravitation)

“Science is a way of thinking, much more than it is a
body of knowledge. Our species needs, and deserves, a
citizenry with minds wide-awake, and with a basic
understanding of how the world works.”
— Dr. Carl Sagan (Astro-physicist)
“Science has its weaknesses and it doesn't have a
stranglehold on the truth, but it has a way of approaching
technical issues that is a closer approximation of truth
than any other method we have.”
— Dr. Richard Muller (Physicist at Berkeley)

Science is a
PROCESS
The term “Science” comes from the Latin word “scientia,” which means “knowledge”. The question is how do we
obtain knowledge in technical areas? Over thousands of years we have worked out a methodology for discovering
the technical truths of our universe. That is what the fields of Science are all about. Science is a Process.

{The understanding that Science is a Process is critically important
for our evaluating claims that are supposedly science based.
The question always is: did they follow the process?}

the Scientific Process
is an assessment that is:
1) Comprehensive, 2) Independent, 3) Transparent, 4) Empirical
Real World
All Data Available
Objective
Technical,
Economic, &
Environmental
{Using these four criteria it will be very apparent whether you’re dealing with Science or snake oil.
Wind energy (for example) has never been subjected to the Scientific Process.}

Science is a PROCESS that Works Like This:
When a new idea (hypothesis) is proposed
as a potential solution to a problem,
it is up to the advocates to provide the scientific evidence
that verifies its veracity.
Note: It’s not anyone else’s obligation to
disprove the proposed hypothesis,
or to put forward a “better” one.

{Science without the proper Process is not Science!
Call it whatever you want — political science,
pseudo-science, astrology, etc. but it is not true Science.}
Science Without Method

Science is
the enemy
of con artists,
scammers,
and other
self-serving
promoters.

Part 2:
Science and Religion
Text
{Before we go into HOW Science is under assault, we need to understand WHY.
It may not be apparent, but it’s mostly about religion.}

Religion
Faith
Science
Facts
{The basic difference between traditional Science and conventional Religion is that Science is based on
provable Facts, while Religion is based on Faith. Although there have been periodic spats between
these two world views (when one trespassed onto the territory of the other), by-and-large Science and
Religion have amicably co-existed for a long time. It has been a bit like a brother-sister relationship.}

{What we have now is that
a new global religion
is competing for the
hearts and minds of
worldwide citizens.
It doesn’t take much
research to see that
this is the conclusion
of most objective
observers.}

Environmentalism:
The New Religion,
Freely Taught in Schools

New
Religion
Faith
Science
Facts
{Traditional Religions are based on faith. Is that the case with this new religion, environmentalism?
How successful would environmental organizations be in raising money, or getting citizens to get
involved, if their pitch was: “Have faith in us! Take our word for it, global warming is real.”?}

New
Religion
Faith
Science
Facts
{No, that wouldn’t get too many people excited.
Who would care what some activists believe? So, what to do?}

Public Praises Science
{It didn’t take too much thought for their PR people to come
up with the answer: they needed to align themselves with
something that the public DID believe in. The fact is that the
public (rightly so) has a great deal of respect for Science.}

New
Religion
Faith
Science
Facts
{So, contrary to all historical precedent, this new religion attempted to cross the wall
and align itself with Science. The theory was that if Science endorsed their agenda,
then citizens and governments would quickly fall in line.}

New
Religion
Faith
Science
Facts
{But then there was a new, BIG problem: when using genuine science, the results did not
come out to what the environmentalists wanted. (For example, using real science they
were unable to come up with any meaningful amount of CO2 saved by using wind energy.)}

New
Religion
Faith
New
Science
Fiction
{Their solution was to undermine the Scientific Process — in other words, change how
traditional Science worked. In effect it is to make up a “new” science. (I’ll explain this in a
some later slides.) This is an ingenious solution for them, but horrifically bad for us.}

Science is the enemy of agenda promoters.

If the importance of Science is diminished,
that will be a major obstacle that proponents of
technical ideologies will not have to deal with.
Their Primary Goal:
Undermine the Authority of Science

New
Religion
Faith
Science
Facts
{Mainstream environmental leaders hate having to deal with real Science,
but are doing it as a necessary evil — sort of like having a root canal.
Ultimately they would like to diminish real Science to the point where it is no longer a formidable obstacle.
What would be left, would be them having enough power that citizens and governments would simply
do what they say, just because they said so. In other words, based on faith alone — just like with traditional religions.}

Modern Environmentalism:
People Would Rather Believe Than Know

“Generally, the advantage of religion is that you do not have to take 'facts' into account.
Like doomsday announcers you simply believe and preach. Western political elites live in a
secularized world, a world without God. But religion (a matter of faith) does apparently
remain a need of human mankind.
“Although God is gone, the rest stayed on. Climate Change is just an example of this
phenomenon. The concept can only be effective if there is guilt (politically incorrect
behavior of humans), fear (doomsday), sin (acts of unprincipled unbelievers), and finally
salvation (brought about by the green movement NGOs). And if there is somehow a
substitute Jesus on top (as impersonated by Al Gore), secular religion gets rooted in
political communities trying to turn it into public policy all citizens have to adhere to.
“It takes courage to withstand religion-based political philosophies. You will be depicted as
a heretic, anti-human, narrow-minded, & as a lackey for the fossil fuel industry. Like in
theocracies any opponent should be dispatched to the dustbin of history. When climate
change was minted into religion and subsequently put on the political agenda, carefully
orchestrated by celebrities and media consultants, it became a wave of self-righteousness.”
Green Secular Religion: Commentary

What Happens When Facts Run Contrary to Beliefs?
“Very few really seek knowledge in this world.
“On the contrary, they try to justify their entrenched, unscientific opinions,
by selectively wringing from the unknown, answers to console themselves.
“To really ask for the Truth is to open the door to the whirlwind
— which may annihilate the questioner.”
— Ann Rice

This has a well-known psychological explanation...
Cognitive Dissonance is the tendency to resist information
that we don't want to think about, because if we did it would
conflict with an illusion we have bought into — and perhaps
require us to act in ways that are out of our comfort zone.
— Leon Festinger

An Explanation of the Prior “Cognitive Dissonance” Slide
In laymen’s terms, Cognitive Dissonance says that there appears to be a genetic predisposition that
after we buy into something — i.e. get into a mindset — that it becomes extremely difficult for most
people to change their position.
Interestingly this was first officially identified in a study of UFOs. In 1956 a woman claimed that she
had received a message from aliens that within the year the planet would be destroyed. Since she was
very convincing, she soon had a group of followers who had bought into her story (had faith) — so
they sold everything they owned. But then her prediction didn’t come about.
In an attempt to rationalize away their obvious mistake — yet not wanting to admit that they were
wrong — most members of the cult then adopted a new prophecy: that the aliens had instead spared
the planet for their sake. This is Cognitive Dissonance.
We look back on those people and wonder how they could be so gullible — yet here we are willing to
make enormous financial and personal freedom sacrifices, based on predictions of the planet’s
destruction. We’re too smart to buy the aliens threat again, so this time the boogeyman is Global
Warming. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it comes to mind.

The New Religion of Climate Change Part 3:
Religious Exploitation of Cognitive Dissonance

This presentation is about
Science, but it should also be
apparent that this secular faith
is a major threat
to traditional religions.
Standards like the
Ten Commandments are being
replaced by such axioms as
“the end justifies the means.”
War of World Views:
Environmentalism vs
the Judeo-Christian Tradition

It’s bad enough when churches welcome this black widow,
but when scientific organizations also capitulate...

If You Don’t Believe On Your Own, It Will Be Legislated For You

If You Don’t Believe On Your Own, It Will Be Legislated For You
City Arrests Two Moms for Opposing ‘Smart Meters’ in Homes

As a LONG TIME Environmental Advocate,
I can say that this “environmentalism”
has simply gotten out of control...

This is the logical next step
for this scandalous situation...

Part 3:
Some Tricks to Try to
Get Around Real Science
{Since Science is the enemy of those promoting self-serving political and economic agendas, it can be helpful
to be aware of the deceptions used to deceive trusting souls. Here are some of the more common ones…}

1- Using Correlation to imply Causality.
Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary...

Correlation Does NOT prove Causation!

{The number of Facebook users and the yield on Greek bonds, track pretty well
— in other words there is strong correlation. But does either cause the other?
How about the US highway fatality rate vs fresh lemons imported from Mexico?
Great correlation, but does that mean causation? NO!}

{How about ice cream sales vs shark attacks? Or the quality of rock music vs US oil production?
There are thousands of such examples where there is superior correlation, but zero causation.
In these cases, though, citizens have the knowledge to understand that there is no causation.}

Does this prove that there is Global Warming?
{Ahhh, but what about this?
Now we are outside the realm of
most people’s expertise.
The anti-science agenda
promoters are fully aware of this
deficiency, which is why they are
bombarding us with false
causation messages every day.}

{Here is another example. This is a totally bogus claim, that has zero scientific proof
behind it — but the message is that correlation does result from causation}.

{Of course if you look at this article a bit more closely,
there are other hints that it is not an educated position.}.

2- Using Consensus to imply Correctness.

Two Points —
1 - Consensus is not part of the Scientific Process, and
2 - Whether there is a real consensus is unknown.
Basing a case on “consensus” is little more than an appeal to authority.

“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped
cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It
is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear ‘the
consensus of scientists agrees on something or other,’ reach for your wallet, because you’re
being had.”
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is
the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens
to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the
real world. Consensus is irrelevant: what is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest
scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
— Michael Crichton January 17, 2003: speech at the California Institute of Technology
Consensus is not part of the Scientific Process

A scientist objected to my use of the prior quote saying: “Crichton was not a research scientist.”
That is correct, but such a comment is indicative of how our communication is going downhill. One
disputes the veracity of a statement by providing contrary evidence — not by disparaging the source.
Such thinking also indicates a rather elitist perspective: that the only people we should listen to are those
who have a degree in the topic. Balderdash.
The fact is that whether Crichton had multiple Science PhDs (or zero) is irrelevant, as that is not a
necessary criteria for expressing the truth. Our society recognizes that extraordinary insights can come
from anyone — thus the expression "from the mouths of babes."
Einstein made several remarks against consensus, so would he be more acceptable?
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt.
He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him a spinal cord would suffice.”
and “Few people are capable of expressing opinions that differ from the prejudices
of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”

Up until recently, essentially the entire medical establishment
believed that ulcers were primarily caused by stress…
Every Medical Doctor in the world,
Every Medical PhD Researcher in the world,
Every Medical Hospital in the world,
Every Medical School in the world,
Every Medical Textbook in the world,
Every Medical Journal in the world,
Every Pharmaceutical Company in the world, etc.
THEY WERE ALL WRONG!

Yes! The
parallels with
the global
warming
situation
are obvious.
Of Climate Science and Stomach Bugs

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 members of the Canadian Association of
Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA):
of the respondents —
— 99% believe climate is changing.
— Only 32% agreed with the statement that:
“…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.”
— Only 26% of them attributed global warming primarily to:
“human activity like burning fossil fuels.”
Whether there is a Real Consensus is Unknown
Peer-Reviewed Report Finds
Majority of Surveyed Scientists
Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis

{Note how they subtly (and dishonestly)
changed it from being
“97% of scientists” to
“97% of scientific experts”.
Those are not the same thing!
And the question posed asked their opinion,
where is should have asked:
“Are you aware of scientific proof that…”.}

Note:
75÷77 = 97%, but
75÷3,146 = 2% &
75÷10,257 = .7%
{Here are the actual
survey figures from one
of the most cited sources.
Over 10,000 scientists
were sent the survey.
(That is not even 1% of
scientists worldwide.)
It was poorly worded
(remember: words are
important!) and that
might explain why less
than a third even
bothered to respond.}

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’:
A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus,
and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

Consensus is irrelevant in Science. There are plenty of examples
in history where everyone agreed, and everyone was wrong.
Dr. Richard Tol

3-Substituting Intuition for the Science Process.

Up until recently, essentially the entire medical establishment
believed that ulcers were primarily caused by stress…
Every Medical Doctor in the world,
Every Medical PhD Researcher in the world,
Every Medical Hospital in the world,
Every Medical School in the world,
Every Medical Textbook in the world,
Every Medical Journal in the world,
Every Pharmaceutical Company in the world, etc.
THEY WERE ALL WRONG!
So Why Did This Happen?
{This happened as tens of thousands of scientist and experts relied on intuition,
and didn’t bother to scientifically verify their intuitive beliefs.}

Intuition is NOT science!
Intuition is an invaluable way
to come up with new ideas —
but it can’t stop there.
New ideas (hypothesis) must then be
subjected to scientific verification.
To stop with what seems to be intuitively
obvious, results in FALSE conclusions like:
the earth is the center of the solar system,
ulcers are caused by stress,
wind energy is free, clean & green, etc.

“Science education is not simply
a matter of learning new theories.
Rather it requires that students unlearn
their instincts, shedding false beliefs…
When students learn new scientific theories
(that conflict with earlier naive theories),
our findings suggest that the naive theories
are suppressed by scientific theories,
not supplanted by them.”
More evidence why we need to do more than follow our intuition...

4- Using “Peer Review” to imply Accuracy.

What is Peer Review?
1 - The "Peer Review" process is primarily overseen by editors of certain
trade publications. These editors are often not scientists.
2 - "Peer Review" is applicable in one primary situation:
when a scientist is proposing a new hypothesis.
3 - "Peer Review" is simply the opinions of selected other scientists
about the acceptability of a proposed hypothesis.
4 - Even if all these selected other scientists agree with the hypothesis,
that does not constitute scientific proof that the hypothesis is accurate.

“Peer-Review” is an Abused Credential

Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study
of Confirmation Bias in the Peer Review System
“Without further scrutiny of the purposes and processes of peer review, we are left with little to defend it other than tradition.”

This is an interesting study that purposefully
resubmitted already peer-reviewed articles
(with different titles and authors) to the same
source that originally published them.
Read about the amazing results!

Give some thought to
the substantial
implications of this...

“Peer Review” is an arbitrary academic anachronism that is more about politics than
science. One of the key assumptions behind the peer review concept is that consensus
equals accuracy. The error in that is that science is NOT about consensus. Our history
is replete with numerous examples of where consensus was totally wrong.
“The real mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than
a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding.
Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review.
“We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make
science our most objective truth teller.
“But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable,
incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and
frequently wrong.”
—Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet

{Once you have a better
understanding of what
peer-review really is,
this conclusion
won’t be as stunning
as it initially appears.}

5- Using Scientists to imply Scientificness.

Is every priest (minister, rabbi) a holy person?
Is every lawyer a law-abiding citizen?
Is every scientist a promoter of science?

NO!

There are tens of thousands of scientists
who are off the reservation!
This happens due to reasons like:
1) financial incentives (e.g. grants),
2) concerns for job security,
3) required for career advancement,
4) the influence of peer pressure,
5) interest in promoting a personal agenda, etc.

When a Priest violates his profession —
he is defrocked.

When a Lawyer violates his profession —
he is disbarred.

When a Scientist violates his profession —
he is funded by advocacy groups.
{When scientists act contrary to their profession, there is no real procedure to cull out the bad apples. (IMO they
should have their degrees revoked.) Instead, what typically happens, is that they get hired or funded by special
advocacy groups who want to take advantage of their science “credibility” to promote their self-serving agenda.}

Just because a scientist makes an assertion,
does not make that claim scientific.
What makes a claim scientific is that
it has followed the Scientific Process.
A Report by Scientists ≠ a Scientific Report!

Some Indications of Unprofessional Scientists
By only telling us just one side of the story it is easy for fallen-away scientists
to make it seem like there is universal support (consensus) for their position.

Fraud, plagiarism, cherry-picked results, poor or
non- existent controls, confirmation bias, opaque,
missing or unavailable data, and stonewalling
when questioned have gone from being rare to
being everyday occurrences. Just look at the
soaring retraction level across multiple scientific
publications, and the increasingly vocal hand
wringing of science vigilantes.
{There is overwhelming
evidence that many scientists
are not fulfilling their
professional obligations
as scientists.}

That’s why
this type of claim
is inappropriate.
(See next slide.)

There Is
NO SUCH THING
as
“BAD SCIENCE”!
{One of the things I hear a lot is “bad science.” To me that phrase is like scraping fingernails across the
chalkboard. IMO there is no such thing as bad science — as Science is a process that has been proven to be
successful. What there is are numerous examples where the process has been perverted, aborted, distorted, etc.
These are all examples of bad scientists — not bad Science.
This is an extremely important word distinction! Part of the assault on Science is to undermine its credibility.
If citizens can be hoodwinked into believing there is good and bad Science,
that goes a long way towards their questioning the legitimacy and applicability of Science.}

6- Using Computer Models to imply Reality.

On the surface, a computer model holds three main enticements. The first is that it represents a
shortcut. Make no mistake about it: we are addicted to the quick way. For instance, we don’t like
having to take the time and effort to do real world assessments — so, we just model it, and assume
that it’s equivalent. It often is not.
The second big attraction is that computer models give us the illusion that we are able to predict
the future. Who wouldn’t like to do that? But can we really equate the extraordinarily complex
situation of world climate many years from now, by just a series of “ones” and “zeros” (e.g. as in next
slide)? Unfortunately we are losing our ability to discern between reality and a mirage.
The third killer selling point for computer models is that marketers can imbed hidden sales messages
in what appears to be a science based package. Put another way, computer models are comprised of
unidentified assumptions — many of them unproven. But we, the marks, know none of this.
This situation reminds me of someone being given a new workshop tool as a birthday gift. Something
that they have been able to live without for 30 years all of a sudden becomes a key element in every
project they have. That's where we are now with computer models: significant over use.
Computer Models Are Not Reality

10110111100110110101001
01010000100001010001000
10100010001000110111100
10101000111010101000101
11001001010010101010001
01001100011011110101010
00101010100011101010101
00101000101000100110001
00111010010011110010110
01001010101000010101010
00101010010010101010001
11101010101000000101010
10111000010101010100101
00010101000101000110110
01000110100101000101010
00101101001101001000...
=
?

{The fact is that scientists do NOT have
a thorough understanding of all the
relative physics of climate.
For instance, this Woods Hole graph
indicates that scientists are uncertain
about some 20% of carbon sinks —
which is an enormously large amount.
With this degree of uncertainty, of such
a significant item today, how can a
highly accurate computer model be
constructed for 50 years from now?}

{Here is part of an interesting study about some of the people writing
global warming computer models. These people acknowledge that
they have difficulty in segregating the real world from their digital fantasy.}

The UN’s Global Warming Forecasts
Are Performing Very, Very Badly

{This article (continued on next page) gives us a cautionary tale, that is amazing that we have yet to see the
connection with. It is about the fact that a primary reason that there was crash in the whole world’s economy,
was due to failed computer models. Yet these are the exact same things we are now trusting,
as we intend to spend tens of trillions of dollars to prevent global warming! Pay attention to the parallels...}

{This fascinating video is informative about how fallible computer programming is.}

National Academy of Sciences: Climate Models
still “decades away” from, being useful

7- Using Selective Data to imply Actuality.

Seeing the WHOLE Picture is Critical.
Let’s Look at Some Graphs
of Greenland Ice Core Temperatures.
{One of the four Scientific Process elements is to be comprehensive. Using selective data violates that. This is a
powerful trick as the results can easily be manipulated so that they seem to be legitimate to the uncritical person.
The next several slides is an example that should make it quite clear. Let’s look at Greenland ice core samples,
and see how changing the time period can give remarkably different impressions.}

Graph #1: Last 600± Years
Conclusion: Things are Getting BAD
Greenland Ice Core Temperatures:
{Note: Since it takes years for ice to become suitable for ice coring,
this is the latest data available.}

Graph #2: Last 1,200± Years
Conclusion: Oh. Maybe it’s not really so bad.

Conclusion: Wow. We’re really in GOOD shape.

Conclusion: We’re actually at a LOW point.
{So let’s say that some people are running an environmental group
that wants to substantially influence public policy.
They know that that a tried-and-true tactic to get support is to make
people afraid. So let’s go backwards and you tell me which graph is the
one they will be showing on their website, articles, and presentations...}

Will this make people afraid? Not Likely.

Will this make people afraid? Doubt it.

Graph #1: Last 600± Years
Will this make people afraid? Probably so!
{This should do the trick! Note that there is nothing false
about this graph, just that it doesn’t show the whole picture.
That’s why comprehensive is part of the Scientific Process.

{One more example: how weather events are reported.
Every opportunity is taken to make an artificial connection with a US weather event and
global warming — even though you already know that correlation doesn’t prove causation.}
Seeing the WHOLE picture is Critical.
Let’s Look at Sample Weather Stories.

These types of stories are constantly on US mainstream media:

Yet these types of
stories get essentially
no US mainstream
media coverage...

8- Using PNS to imply better Science.

{Here is a trick you’ve probably never heard of
— yet it is one of the most troublesome threats
to Science there is.
PNS is Post Normal Science. The bottom line is
that for the first time ever, there are those who
are trying to introduce a value system into the
Science process.
It shouldn’t take too much thought before
we’ll ask “whose values”? You can be sure that
they won’t be asking you and me.}

Post-Normal Science is a concept attempting to characterize a
methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where:
"facts are uncertain,
values are in dispute,
stakes are high, and
decisions are urgent."
“Post Normal Science” is bogus science.
{Think about it: every one of these items is problematic! For instance, who is the authority that says
“the stakes are high”? Who is the official arbiter that dictates “decisions are urgent”? None of
this has anything to do with Science, and all of it has to do with giving up your freedoms.}

SPECIAL FEATURE:
Postmodern Science — a Contradiction in Terms

{Consider this recent situation. It should
give us pause as to what happens when
“values” are artificially injected into the
Science Process. This degreed person,
who proudly says he is against the death
penalty (for something like the Sandy
Hook murders), then says that global
warming deniers should be executed!
Another point to consider is that
this person is a music professor —
so what gives him the credentials
to assess the scientific merits of the
global warming hypothesis?
This is really all about eliminating
heretics against his religion.}

9- Using the PP to imply Reasonableness.

{The Precautionary Principle is particularly problematic because, on the surface, it almost seems reasonable.
That is a key component to any con job: to get you to put your guard down.
Note the overlap with PNS, in that this is another attempt to inject subjective values into Science.

“The Precautionary Principle allows regulatory agencies
to shape and influence policy decisions
that have little or no scientific substantiation.”
The Problems with Precaution:
A Principle Without Principle

In America, we have the concept “innocent until proven guilty” as the
basis of our Common Law. Note that the Precautionary Principle
reverses this, saying: “guilty until proven innocent”...

Challenging the Precautionary Principle
How has society come to be governed by the maxim ʻbetter safe than sorryʼ?
by Helene Guldberg

10-Disguising “Normative Science” as Real Science.

This is
EXTREMELY
pertinent...

Note:
Normative Science is
actually another form of
“Motivated Reasoning.”
“Social science research suggests that reasoning away contradicting facts
is psychologically easier than revising feelings.”

It is due to this pressure
from special interests
groups that some good
scientists succumb to
Normative Science.

11-Using Engineering to imply Science.

Scientists & Engineers
Must Work Closely Together
How Do Science & Engineering Inter-relate?
{It may come as a surprise to many people, but engineers are not scientists.}

Science:
Proves principles
Engineering:
Applies Proven principles
A Simplified Summary —

This implies a proper sequence
Science —> Engineering

What Happens When
Engineering
gets ahead of
Science?

The appropriate initial question is:
“SHOULD We Do This?”
(i.e. does it make sense to do this?)
This looks at problems from a SCIENCE perspective.
When We Are Presented With Technical Options (like Wind Energy)...

The anti-science proponents have changed the initial question to:
“CAN We Do This?”
This looks at problems from an ENGINEERING perspective.
When We Are Presented With Technical Options (like Wind Energy)...

It’s the job of engineers to take on challenges,
so of course their answer is always:
“Sure, We Can Do It!”
This change from a SCIENCE perspective to an ENGINEERING one,
is a subtle but profound alteration.
The focus is then almost entirely on implementation,
so almost no one really cares about the net cost or sensibility.
[Good examples of the foolishness of this approach
are the ethanol debacle, and wind energy.]

Do Engineers
Have an Obligation
to Speak Out Against
Poor Technical Policies
?
{I would say yes — but not many are!}

Do engineers sign up for the money available to
enable unscientific policies?
or
Do engineers stand up and object to
foolish wasting of money and resources?
IMO it comes down to this:

There are two matters at stake:
Integrity of the engineering profession.
and
The success of our country.

12-Using Probabilities to imply Certainty.

{This is a typical news story.
Since the article is derived from an
official government agency report,
it is taken as gospel by those
who diet on soundbites.
The next slide is the actual report, which
puts things somewhat differently.}

What does this Government Agency
Statement Really Mean?
It is equivalent to the Government
saying that they have 90%+ confidence
that the Jacksonville Jaguars
will have a winning season by 2100.

A frequent trick employed by wind promoters is to make wildly specious claims under the
auspices of it “being possible.” For instance, the NC Sierra Club states that:
“North Carolina’s shallow-water wind resources are the best on the Atlantic coast, with
58 GW of available capacity — which amounts to 130% of the state’s energy demands.”
If I said that “you might get an anonymous cashiers check in the mail for $100,000,” you would
have enough knowledge of that situation to immediately classify it into the realm of unreality,
and not give my statement any credibility.
With the wind energy situation, the promoters know that you do NOT have sufficient knowledge
to make any such assessment, so they are free to make claims that make no practical
sense whatsoever — comfortable with the fact that you will not know that.
Purposefully Confusing Possibility with Probability

Using Fear to Distort the Probabilities

13-Using Technical Terms to imply Competence.

{Another variation of the “baffle us with BS” trick, is to make claims sound more impressive than they are
by injecting a slew of unnecessary technical gibberish.}

Medical Jargon Confuses 50% of Public

14-Reversing Responsibility to imply Obligation.

Science is a PROCESS that Works Like This:
When a new idea (hypothesis) is proposed
as a potential solution to a problem,
it is up to the advocates to PROVE its efficacy
(not the other way around).

What happens after the CO2 proponents
have been shown several major flaws
in their hypothesis?
They often answer that
if we don’t like their hypothesis,
then we should come up with a better one.
{That type of answer is a dead giveaway that the speaker
has very little understanding of how real Science works.}

15-Claiming the mantle of Science
— yet being anything but.

{These two conflicting reports were found at the same internet source (at different times).
Some people will conclude that scientists don’t know what they are doing…}

{This (and the next four slides) is about a major environmental matter where I have first-hand familiarity.
This is one of dozens of puff pieces where the anti-science forces falsely made the NC H819 situation as being
“science” (supposedly them) vs those with economic interests: real estate developers.}

This (and the next three
slides) are more
examples of how science
was misrepresented in
this major
environmental matter.

{I know more than a little about this
as I was the editor of the primary report
disputing a NC state agency’s sea level
rise study — and I’ve never been
a real estate developer.
This report is not from me anyway, but is
actually the responses of some thirty
oceanographers and other sea level
experts to the state agency document.
The words “real estate” or “economics”
are not mentioned even once in the
thirty four pages of this report.
The report is ALL about the fact that the
state agency study did not adhere to
the Science Process — not economics!}

{Here it says that we
are audacious to
attempt to tell
“actual scientists”
what to think & do.
Well guilty as charged:
we ARE telling these
degreed people that
they need to follow the
Scientific Process.
In the state agency
report they did nothing
even remotely like that,
and that was the
fundamental problem,
NOT economics!}

{An inaccurate “peer-review” claim is made
by this political (not scientific) organization.}

{This is a good
publication about what
real scientists do —
I mean, should do.}

{When political science forces
falsely claim to be
the real McCoy,
this just further erodes
the public confidence
in genuine science
— which is their goal.}

The reason that these agenda promoters
use ALL these tactics
is that they know that
Real Science is the biggest obstacle they have!

Part 4:
Some Environmental Hypocrisies
{If the canons of the mainstream environmental religion are really all about protecting the environment,
then how does one explain these apparent hypocrisies?}

Assessing the Legitimacy of a Religion - 1
Verifying the legitimacy of purported scientific claims is relatively straightforward:
see whether the claims have been subjected to a proper scientific analysis.
(In other words, have they followed the Scientific Process?)
But what about verifying the legitimacy of religious claims?
Since these are based on faith rather than facts, how does one verify tenets of faith?
Admittedly this is a trickier matter, but there is one good methodology for assessing the legitimacy of
faith-based assertions — see whether the proponents’ actions are consistent with their words.
Hypocrisies will exist where there are serious disparities.
When a series of hypocrisies can be identified (and they go unacknowledged and unresolved), that
would be a good indication that the religion is a sham.
The next several slides point out examples of hypocrisies with the mainstream environmentalism
movement. You decide for yourself what this says about their religion.

Their number one objective
is to protect and preserve the environment.
They say:
Hypocrisy Example #1

Yet they aggressively support “solutions”
(like wind energy)
that cause enormous environmental damage.
{So are they genuinely concerned about the environment —
or using that as a guise to promote a bigger political agenda?}
Their actions:

{I know of no mainstream
environmental organization
that has adequately reported
this horrific situation —
but here are the stark conclusions
from an English investigation…
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next slide has another example
of significant environmental
destruction — that mainstream
environmental groups
are accepting.
“Environmentalists” actions
with the USF&WS are damning.}

Sierra Club Publication
Promotes Industry Over Wildlife

We need to take
immediate, meaningful global warming action
to prevent colossal catastrophes from happening.
They say:

Yet they aggressively support “solutions”
(like wind energy) — which have no scientifically
proven consequential global warming benefits.
{It would seem that the more serious the danger,
that the more sure we would want to be that
advocated solutions really work —
i.e. make a consequential difference. But not so here!}
Their actions:

If we don’t take
immediate, consequential global warming action
many millions of lives will be lost.
They say:

Many millions of lives are already annually lost to
preventable causes. Yet no mainstream environmental
group is advocating spending anything near the global
warming $ on something that is 100% real, today.
Their actions:
{If they are really about saving lives —
why aren’t they more aggressively supporting immediate solutions,
instead of funding possible fixes to speculative future problems?}

Sample Annual Global Deaths
(per the World Health Organization)
1-Non-Communicable Diseases = 33,500,000
2-Communicable Diseases = 18,300,000
3-Injuries = 5,200,000
[Note 1: Extreme Weather Events = 20,000]
[Note 2: Vit. A, Iron, Zinc Deficiency = 1,400,000]
1-Cardiovascular, Cancer, Respiratory, etc.
2-Tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, Diarrhea, Malaria, etc.
3-Vehicular, Civilian Violence, War, etc.

Sample of
Annual Deaths
due to risks
(per the WHO):

The 2012
Copenhagen
Consensus
Project’s
conclusions about
global threats.
(Note that “climate
change” items are
only 12th & 17th
in importance.)

They say:
If we don’t take
immediate, consequential global warming action
many millions of lives will be lost.

Yet these same proponents
are actively supporting population control.
{How can they really be about saving lives —
while they support reducing the population?}
Their actions:

Next on the Environment Agenda: Population Control!

The US needs to have energy independence.
They say:

Yet many of these same proponents
are actively supporting globalization.
{How can we be an active participant in the global economy —
yet be independent?}
Their actions:

The US needs to have energy independence.
They say:

{How can the US be energy independent —
when homegrown sources of reliable, affordable energy are prohibited?}
Their actions:
Yet environmental groups actively resist measures that
would insure US energy independence —even after it’s
concluded that they don’t cause consequential harm.

We must apply the Precautionary Principle
to important technical issues
(e.g. the global warming hypothesis).
They say:

Yet these same proponents never apply
the Precautionary Principle
to their proposed “solutions” (e.g. wind energy).
Their actions:
{There are hundreds of reports and studies
(from independent competent experts),
that have concluded that wind energy is harmful to humans and wildlife.}

We must follow the advice of the “experts”
(e.g. regarding the global warming hypothesis).
They say:

Their actions:
Yet these same proponents
disregard what the experts (e.g. physicists) say
regarding what they don’t like (e.g. nuclear power).
{So do we follow the advice of the experts —
or do we make our own faith-based decisions?}

The IPCC is a collection
of many of the best scientists in the world,
and are the high priests of the environmental religion.
They say:

Their actions:
Yet these same apostles
dismiss what the IPCC says
when they don’t like it (e.g. Sea Level Rise).
{So is the IPCC composed of experts beyond questioning — or not?}

“Peer Review” is the ultimate science authority
(e.g. regarding the global warming hypothesis).
They say:

Their actions:
{So is “Peer Review” the gold standard —
or just a convenient reference when if supports their beliefs?}
Yet these same proponents disregard “Peer Review”
when they don’t like what is says.

{When is the last time
an environmental
organization cited
peer-review
sources like this?}

Assessing the Legitimacy of a Religion - 2
At the beginning of this section we said that we’d assess the legitimacy of the environmentalism faith-
based assertions — by seeing whether their actions are consistent with their dogma.
Hypocrisies exist where there are major disparities.
Ten examples of serious hypocrisies were identified — and they all pertain to main tenets of the
environmental religion.
Since these all go unacknowledged and unresolved at this time, many people would interpret that as
a good indication that the religion is a sham.
So we’ve shown that the environmentalism religion:
1) is not based on real science, and
2) is not even consistent with its own professed beliefs.
The inescapable conclusion is that mainstream environmentalism is actually about some undeclared
ideology. Since exploring that is beyond the scope of this presentation, it will be left up to the reader
to decide what those actually are. One opinion can be found in the video: Grinding America Down.

Part 5:
Assuring A Compliant Populace
{With all this undermining of one of our society’s main pillars, why aren’t more people aware of this and
speaking out about it? Well citizens aren’t going to complain about something, if they can’t understand it.}

¿No Comprende?
{Why is the prior slide true? It’s largely because our adult population can’t process these more complex matters.
I’m not ordinarily into conspiracy theories, but I believe that this is no accident.}

“Shut up, you moron! Do as you’ve been told.
It’s for your own good!”
Wait a minute —
something feels
wrong here!
{Less educated people tend to ask fewer — and less insightful — questions.
They will just go along. Put another way, the vaccine for ignorance is education.}

Don’t Teach
Critical Thinking.
{IMO this is a core educational problem. There is no more important skill
that our students need to be taught or encouraged to develop. It’s not happening.}

Doonesbury
weighs in...
— Continued on Next Slide —

What Is
Critical
Thinking?
A thorough, open-minded, logical effort
to examine a claim,
in the light of applicable evidence.
One of the key ingredients of true science — and critical thinking — is
SKEPTICISM

{Mr. Cerf is one of the founders of Google, so knows of what he speaks. Read carefully what he says...
The point is that those that want to get their political way, don’t want a populace
that is thoughtful about information they accept, process and use!
Instead our children are being thoroughly propagandized from a very young age...}

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth...
Give me four years to teach the children
and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
— Lenin

{Nothing is different in higher education,
as the objective remains the same:
avoid producing thinking citizens!
As it says here, these newly educated
adults now don’t have the ability to
segregate fact from opinion.
That is really scary.}

Diminish the
Importance and Quality
of Science Education.
{My focus here is on what is happening to Science, and there is absolutely no doubt
that Science has been particularly devalued in our education system.}

“I think people do not understand that science is a way of approaching problems, rather than a
body of knowledge. As a result, adults (with less science education) are often unable to assess
claims and counter claims as they make choices on critical issues that face them as citizens…”

{Despite the US spending more per student than almost anyone else,
we continue to do poorly compared to other developed countries.}

{How is this possible? Why is it acceptable?}

Common Core
may make the
situation worse...
‘Next Generation Science Standards’
Given ‘C’ Grade by Education Think Tank

So What?
One study concluded that this deficiency,
would mean (over 20 years) a
$41 trillion loss in the US’s GDP.

Diminish the
Quality of Education,
using Grade Inﬂation.
{You might ask: why would parents put up with a diminishing education product for their children?
To answer that logical question we need to step back and see the Big Picture of what is going on.}

Undergraduate Grade Point Average (GPA) at UNC Chapel Hill
{These people who are intent on
taking over, are no fools.
In this case, as they reduced the
quality of education,
they simultaneously introduced
grade inflation!
The net effect was to keep parents
from objecting, as who would
complain when their child is
getting better grades?
This graph is representative of what
has happened across the board.}

{This also sends a really
bad message to students:
that they only have to show
up and do cursory work
to be highly rewarded.
In other words this is
sowing the seeds of an
entitlement mentality.
What are the consequences
of millions of US students
becoming adults who then
apply that perspective
to their job, their family,
and their community?
Not good for them or us!}

{Please read this carefully…}

{More of the same
bad message.}

Diminish the
Quality of Education,
by Tolerating Cheating.
{You might ask: why would colleges tolerate cheating?
Despite their protests otherwise, the reality is that students are a major income source.}

{So do students who want to get better
grades work harder? Not likely, as a
standard they are being taught is:
the end justifies the means!
An entirely expected result is that when they
don’t get the grade they believe they’re
entitled to, they frequently cheat.
And it’s more often is sciences, and much
more than ever before (see next slide).}

{Students and professors
are both cheating...
When do we as a society
say enough is enough?}
Everyone is Cheating: College Students
and their Professors

Just when we thought
the prior slide had
found the bottom of the
barrel, there is this...
Have we
had enough yet?

Some Expected Consequences
{In addition to the sample liabilities already pointed out
(e.g. the US losing trillions due to poor science education) there are these...}

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
A Sample Consequence...

{Even more adverse
consequences...}
A Sample Consequence...

I Am Malala!
{There are many in the world who are willing to die for a good education —
yet we sit complacently by and allow our academic system to become diluted and polluted. Shame on us.}

Some Other Good
Academic Reform Ideas.

We have been warned about the consequences of our education policies —
1 - We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology —
in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.
2 - I am often amazed at how much more capability and enthusiasm for science
there is among elementary school youngsters than among college students.
3 - We have arranged things so that almost no one understands science and
technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a
while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and
power is going to blow up in our faces.
— Dr. Carl Sagan

Exposed to Facts,
the Misinformed Believe Lies More Strongly
Exposed to Facts,
the Misinformed Believe Lies More Strongly
{This study is very revealing. On the surface you might ask: why don’t facts make a difference?
Well, to a fact-based society they would! This is more evidence that we are moving away from a Science-
based society, to one that is faith-based. We and our students are being brain-washed to accept the
secular religion of environmentalism — with it’s own value system — as the basis for our actions.
This important study demonstrates how pervasive this has become in our society.}

When we are confronted with questions of Science, we often have
neither the tenacity nor intellectual rigor to properly do our
homework.
In truth, in the realm of politics, quite often expedience is the order
of the day, and obfuscation, misdirection and white lies are the
implementing tools.
—a Canadian newspaper op-ed
Deliver Us From Evil

“Since the waning years of the 20th century, politics has increasingly
intruded on science. Scientific insights achieved through systematic,
objective collection of data, and empirical testing, have been subjected to
political screening.
“Pioneering research findings that do not conform to political orthodoxy
have too often been considered ‘politically incorrect’ and even attacked and
censored.
“This trend has been particularly apparent in the fields of health and
environmental science, where the stakes are very large. Respected scholars
have been vilified when their research findings called into question the
assumptions of ‘conventional wisdom’ and the agendas of powerful special
interests.
— continued on next slide —
A Superior Summary of the Situation (part 1)

“In the public arena, alarmist rhetoric over complicated issues has tended to
drown out calm, rational discourse. Highly significant findings of great
import have been ignored. Politicians and government regulators have
made public policy decisions based upon false or fragmentary information.
As a result, a host of unscientific, intrusive and counter-productive
government policies have become commonplace, including takings of
private property, bans of harmless substances, unwarranted liability court
awards, byzantine bureaucratic controls, and regulatory measures that
endanger economic growth as well as health and the environment.”
— The Independent Institute
A Superior Summary of the Situation (part 2)

1 - Carefully study ScienceUnderAssault.Info.
2 - Do what they can to see that the entire education system:
a) aggressively teaches Critical Thinking, and
b) promotes and prioritizes hard sciences.
3 - As a major step to defuse partisan politics (and get better results),
see that all technical policies are based on genuine science.
4 - Support companies that are developing science-based
energy and environmental solutions.
Legislators should:

The United States can be a Leader in:
1) Eighteenth century ideas like horse transportation and wind energy
(buggy whip manufacturing, blacksmith and windmill jobs)
OR
2) State-of-the-art, Scientifically Sound energy solutions
(like geothermal energy, Small Modular Reactors, etc.)
Note the absurdity of the lobbyist motto: “All of the Above.”
We need to be adopting “All of the Sensible” as an energy slogan.
See much more at WiseEnergy.org.

A Sample Business that should be supported

for Giving This Matter
Some Critical Thought!
THANK YOU

References (for main data, quotes, etc.): #1 —
Slide 4: WhistleBlower Book (www.wnd.com/2010/02/124000/)
Slide 6: Einstein Quote (www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html)
Slide 8: Mark Twain Quote (www.goodreads.com/quotes/4957-the-difference-between-the-right-word-and-the-almost-right)
Slide 12: Carl Sagan Quote (tinyurl.com/o83epug); Richard Muller Quote (tinyurl.com/n37hq39)
Slide 14: Science is a Process, Not Just a Bunch of Facts (tinyurl.com/b4e2ntk) & Book (tinyurl.com/a99ml6q)
Slide 15: Science is a Process (tinyurl.com/375no6) & Ted talk (tinyurl.com/c29t9y9)
Slide 18: Science Without Method (tinyurl.com/nyae6zg) & Learning to Read Science Articles (tinyurl.com/lbhz8xd)
Slide 22: Environmentalism as Religion (New Atlantis) (www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/environmentalism-as-religion)
Slide 23: Environmentalism as Religion (WSJ) (online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510004575186343555831322.html)
Slide 24: Environmentalism as Religion (Ostrowski) (www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/ostrowski-john1.html)
Slide 25: Environmentalism as New World Religion (www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12002&page=0)
Slide 26: Environmentalism New Religion Taught in Schools (tinyurl.com/74o99e7)
Slide 29: Public Praises Science (www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/)
Slide 33: Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions? (tinyurl.com/9qofk3k)
Slide 36: Modern Environmentalism (www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=12010)
Slide 37: Religion Without God (www.christopherengland.com/2011/05/religion-without-god.html)
Slide 38: Ann Rice Quote (www.annerice.com/Bookshelf-VampireLestat.html)
Slides 39 & 40: Cognitive Dissonance (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
Slide 41: Religious Exploitation of Cognitive Dissonance (tinyurl.com/bgfq3zq)
Slide 41: Environmentalism and Religion: Substitutes or Complements? (tinyurl.com/banyxu8)
Slide 42: Judeo-Christian Tradition vs Environmentalists (www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/070917)
Slide 43: Government By and For Activists (www.themoralliberal.com/2013/01/06/government-of-by-and-for-activists/)
Slide 44: AGU Scraps Science and is now Faith Based (tinyurl.com/nx2w9qs)
Slide 45: Two Mom’s arrested for Resisting “Smart Meters” (answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130125104515AAHtX1X)
Slide 46: Environmental Laws — NETL
Slides 55 & 56: Sandy’s Strength (www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/30/1152598/-Scientific-American-Sandy-Strength-Due-To-Global-Warming)
Slide 57: Superstition (www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/extreme_weather_superstition_Tcj8NYKEQSAj5hd1ht1zgI)
Slide 59: Logical Fallacy - Appeal to Authority (www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/)
Slide 60: Crichton Quote on Consensus (s8int.com/crichton.html)
— Continued on next page — © john droz, jr.

Einstein Quote on Consensus (www.acceler8or.com/2011/10/against-consensus/)
Slide 62: History of Ulcer Treatment (www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm) and (tinyurl.com/aendon8)
Slide 63: Climate Science and Stomach Bugs (www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/01/of-climate-science-and-stomach-bugs)
Slide 64: Consensus Science - the Rise of a Scientific Elite (www.icr.org/article/consensus-science-rise-scientific-elite/)
also: Consensus and Controversy (tinyurl.com/d33qkc2) & When To Doubt a Scientific Consensus (tinyurl.com/yjbb7us)
Slide 65: APEGGA Survey (tinyurl.com/amfwwzq) & (www.apega.ca/Environment/reports/ClimateChangesurveyreport.pdf)
Slide 66: 97% of Scientists Say AGW is Real (tinyurl.com/aqthsar)
Slide 67: 97% Cooked Stats (opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/)
Slide 68: Climate Science Consensus based on a Myth (tinyurl.com/byh6psl) & (tinyurl.com/cfs5qtk) & (tinyurl.com/pz2dfnx)
Slide 69: About that 97% Number (tinyurl.com/bmj9my9). For a larger list, see (tinyurl.com/Clim97pct)
Slide 70: Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’ (link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9)
Slide 71: The 97% Claim Does Not Stand Up (www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming)
Slide 74: Intuition as a Justification for Ignorance (homebirthdebate.blogspot.com/2008/01/intuition-as-justification-for.html)
Slide 75: Why We Don’t Believe in Science (tinyurl.com/883usyw)
Slide 78: Bias in the Peer Review Process (tinyurl.com/c4mmpms) & Classic Peer Review - an Empty Gun (tinyurl.com/ccxoaxd)
Slide 79: Peer Review: a Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (jrsm.rsmjournals.com/content/99/4/178.full)
Slide 80: Peer Review of New Science (claesjohnson.blogspot.com.br/2013/02/how-to-handle-peer-review-of-new-science.html)
Slide 81: Peer Review - the Fate of Resubmitted Articles (journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844)
Slide 82: Confirmation Bias in the Peer Review System (people.stern.nyu.edu/wstarbuc/Writing/Prejud.htm)
Slide 83: Rex Murphy re Peer Review (tinyurl.com/3qemmu9)
Slide 84: Horton re Peer Review (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_(editor)#Peer_review)
Slide 85: Most Published Research Findings False (www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)
Slide 94: Confirmation Bias - Nickerson (psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf)
Slide 95: Confirmation Bias - Jackson (www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=confirmation.php)
Slide 96: Watchdog Website Shut Down (tinyurl.com/baodqp6)
Slide 97: Bad Science (times247.com/articles/global-warming-bad-science-to-poor-policy)
Slide 101: Computer Models: Models of Illusion (www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/Models_of_Illusion.pdf)
Slide 102: The Missing Carbon Sink - Woods Hole (tinyurl.com/286emcq) and The Carbon Cycle (www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle?topic=49505)
Slide 103: Seductive Simulations (sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf)
— Continued on next page — © john droz, jr.

© john droz, jr.
Slide 104: UN Global Warming Forecasts Performing Badly (tinyurl.com/a4gz83o)
Slides 105 & 106: Computer Models (tinyurl.com/akboba5); also Computer Models Incapable of Modeling Climate (tinyurl.com/apqqzv3)
Slide 107: Quants and Computer Programming (blog.logicoffinance.com/2013/03/quants-alchemists-of-wall-street.html)
Slide 108: NAS: Climate Models ‘Decades Away’ From Being Useful (tinyurl.com/mw9c7dp)
Slide 109: Statisticians Can Prove Anything (news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/20/statisticians-can-prove-almost-anything-a-new-study-finds/)
Slides 112-118: Greenland Ice Core Graphs (www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553)
Slide 120: Record US Heat Wave (www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/record-heat-wave-pushes-u-s-belief-in-climate-change-up-to-70-.html)
Slide 121: Russian Cold Temperatures (rt.com/news/russia-freeze-cold-temperature-379/)
Slide 122: Post-Normal Science (PNS) History (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science)
Slide 124: PNS (sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.12.pdf) & (tinyurl.com/n8agxla)
Slide 125: PNS - A Contradiction in Terms (www.goldendolphin.com/WSarticles/Postmodern%20science.pdf)
Also re PNS: (judithcurry.com/2012/07/24/special-issue-on-postnormal-climate-science/) & (tinyurl.com/yznzxy5)
Slide 126: Death Penalty for AGW Deniers (politicaloutcast.com/2012/12/professor-global-warming-deniers-should-be-executed/)
Slide 127: Wingspread- Precautionary Principle (www.sehn.org/precaution.html)
Slide 128: A Principle Without Principle (www.american.com/archive/2011/may/the-problems-with-precaution-a-principle-without-principle)
Slide 129: Quote [From: the Fallacy of the Precautionary Principle in Ontario...] (tinyurl.com/ajh24xv)
Slide 130: The Paralizing Principle (tinyurl.com/pompm8q) & (www.sirc.org/articles/beware.html) & (tinyurl.com/pkrxpe9)
Slide 131: Challenging the Precautionary Principle (www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DE2F.htm)
Slides 133 & 134: Normative Science (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_science) & (tinyurl.com/b4mqzuo)
Slide 135: Motivated Reasoning (tinyurl.com/m4bg5kq) & (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning)
Slide 136: Climate Scientists Must Not Be Policy Activists (blogs.plos.org/models/climate-scientists-must-not-advocate-particular-policies/)
Slide 149: NOAA SLR Article (www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20121209/NEWS04/312090026/NOAA-sees-sea-level-rise-up-6-6-feet-by-2100)
Slide 150: NOAA SLR Report (researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/sealevels.aspx)
Slide 152: Sierra Club re NC Offshore Wind (nc2.sierraclub.org/nosidebar/offshore-wind-basics)
Slide 153: Fear & Statistics (reason.com/archives/2011/04/12/fear-itself)
Slide 155: Hermetic Jargon (www.cspo.org/library/perspectives/?item=Tennekes_February06)
Slide 156: Medical Jargon (tinyurl.com/bx5kwq5) & Hi-tech Lingo is Confusing (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3054210.stm)
Slide 157: Loquaciousness (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness)
Slide 162: Earthworms and Global Warming (tinyurl.com/cx43uj3) and (tinyurl.com/bplsqj5)
— Continued on next page —

© john droz, jr.
Slide 163: Global Warming and the Corruption of Science (www.sott.net/article/223976-Global-Warming-And-The-Corruption-Of-Science)
Slide 164: Science is Being Corrupted to the Point of Fraud (english.pravda.ru/science/earth/01-05-2013/124459-science_corrupt-0/)
Slide 165: NC GA Tackles SLR (clclt.com/theclog/archives/2012/06/29/general-assembly-tries-to-tackle-sea-level-rise-by-outlawing-facts)
Slide 166: NC Rejects SLR Predictions (in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/03/environment-usa-northcarolina-idINL2E8I3DW320120703)
Slide 167: A Scientific Critique of the NC CRC SLR Report, Part 1 (tinyurl.com/b2ntl4d), Part 2 (tinyurl.com/b9lsst9)
Slide 168: Flat Earthers Deny SLR (pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2012/06/04/even-as-flat-earthers-deny-sea-level-rise-the-land-disappears/)
Slide 169: Union of Concerned Scientists re NC SLR (www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2012/NC-sea-level.html)
Slide 170: On Being A Scientist (www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192)
Slide 177: China Pollution on a Disastrous Scale (tinyurl.com/4u2xjst). USF&WS and Environmental Hypocrisy (tinyurl.com/a3yhuux)
Slide 178: Bats Worth Billions to Agriculture at Risk (www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2743)
Slide 179: Sierra Club Publication Promotes Industry Over Wildlife (www.mojavedesertblog.com/2013/02/sierra-club-publication-promotes.html)
Slide 184: Global Death Rates (www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf)
Slide 185: World Health Organization Mortality Rates (reason.org/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf)
Slide 186: Copenhagen Consensus (www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Files/Filer/CC12%20papers/Outcome_Document_Updated_1105.pdf)
Slide 189: Breaking a Long Silence on Population Control (tinyurl.com/b4vaky6)
Slide 190: Next on the Environment Agenda: Population Control! (tinyurl.com/ahlwo38); Sierra Club re Population Control (tinyurl.com/cbmfzbt)
Slide 192: Globalization Could Be An Environmentalist’s Best Friend (adammjohnston.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/globalizationenviroment/)
Slide 194: Science Has Been Politicized (brian-therightperspective.blogspot.com/2011/01/greenpeace-founder-todays.html)
Slide 197: Environmentalists Oppose Pipeline (tinyurl.com/beujzfs) & Keystone does not harm environment (tinyurl.com/amyph4o)
Slide 206: Peer Review Studies Disputing the AGW Hypothesis (www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html)
Slide 209: Ignorance is Bliss When It Comes To Challenging Social Issues (www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/11/ignorance.aspx)
Slide 211: How Education Is Dumbing You Down (www.sodahead.com/united-states/how-education-is-deliberately-dumbing-you-dowm/blog-263461/)
Slide 216: Critical Thinking - several sources, e.g. (www.criticalthinking.org/about/mission.cfm)
Slide 217: Vinton Cerf on Critical Thinking (curiosity.discovery.com/question/misinformation-internet-thinking-critically)
Slide 218: Sneaking Environmental Propaganda into Public Schools (tinyurl.com/bhzltxj)
Slide 219: Pupils Now Being Fed Propaganda (www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=11866)
Slide 220: Greenpeace - Give me a Child (tinyurl.com/bfuvxdn); Lenin quote (www.gordonstate.edu/pt_faculty/jmallory/index_files/page0487.htm)
also: More about Climate Propaganda Taught in Schools: (tinyurl.com/ap4lqgd), (tinyurl.com/asnvoq5), and (tinyurl.com/bz7f4xs)
— Continued on next page —

College Students not learning Critical Thinking (www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html)
Slide 223: The Woeful State of Science Instruction (tinyurl.com/otabb6t) & (tinyurl.com/3zqs2pp) & (tinyurl.com/mr6v4bj)
Slide 224: US Students Still Lag Behind Foreign Peers… (www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/us-students-still-lag-beh_n_1695516.html)
Slide 225: Physics First (tinyurl.com/a9jj2dv) & Best Education In The World:… (tinyurl.com/c2k96xc)
Slide 226: Science Literacy of World Countries (nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_403.asp)
Slide 227: America Falls Behind in Education Race (www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/18283/america-falls-behind-in-the-education-race)
also: The Single Goalpost Theory - George Will (www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110127/columnist/101271040?p=all&tc=pgall)
Slide 228: Common Core’s Science Standards (tinyurl.com/p7z7qs9) & (tinyurl.com/qxg7upg)
Slide 231: UNC Grade Inflation (www.unc.edu/faculty/faccoun/reports/1999-00/R2000EPCGrdInfl.PDF)
Slide 232: To Stop Grade Inflation… (chronicle.com/article/article-content/132415/)
also: Stop Grade Inflation Initiative (www.endgradeinflation.org/) & (www.chalkbored.com/students-problems-with-grades.htm)
Slide 233: Teacher Suspended for Giving Low Grades (thestir.cafemom.com/teen/138607/school_suspends_teacher_for_giving)
Slide 234: More Teachers Not Grading Homework (wcfcourier.com/lifestyles/article_ab5b3e63-3f01-53cb-a4a5-718db9adf9cf.html)
Slide 236: Shocking Cheating Stats (www.examiner.com/article/cheating-shocking-stats-on-academic-cheating)
Slide 237: Academic Dishonesty - a Crisis (tinyurl.com/mxepc87) & (tinyurl.com/odvsnmb)
Slide 237: Cheating Stats (www.stanford.edu/class/engr110/cheating.html); One Third of a College Class Caught Cheating (tinyurl.com/39ck9r3)
Slide 238: Students and Professors are both cheating (tinyurl.com/o58rrm7) & (tinyurl.com/nj5dqek)
Slide 239: Profs give good Grades for Money (abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8646265)
Slide 241: College Grads Not Ready for Work (collegeinsurrection.com/2013/03/employers-say-college-grads-arent-ready-to-work/)
Slide 242: Misconduct Accounts for Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications (www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028)
Slide 243: The Creativity Crisis (www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html) & (tinyurl.com/ndlpyqb)
Slide 245: Twelve Academic Reforms (tinyurl.com/qdejgo8); 13 Academic Misunderstandings (www.garynorth.com/public/10821.cfm)
Slide 246: Carl Sagan quotes (www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/carl_sagan.html)
Slide 247: Exposed to Facts... (news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/12/exposed-to-facts-the-misinformed-believe-lies-more-strongly/)
Slide 250 & 251: Superior Summary by Independent Institute (www.independent.org/research/cohae/)
Slide 252: Public, Leaders Must Fight Misinformation about Science (tinyurl.com/b6mf84h)
Slide 255: PRISM Reactor (tinyurl.com/apcjpkc); also Transatomic Power (transatomicpower.com/products.php)
— Graphic Credits are on next page —
© john droz, jr.

Credits (for graphics, photos & videos) —
Slide 1: Tidal Wave (forensicarchaeology.org/about/mass-disasters)
Slide 1(alt): Titanic (ultimatetitanic.com/the-sinking/#.UPmA446L-lV)
Slides 5, 20, 49, 173, 208, 248: Science Logo (www.conejo.k12.ca.us/whs/Departments/Science.aspx)
Slide 17: Science Lab (teacherweb.craven.k12.nc.us/TPE/specials/images/7A6FFA731C634321AE6594D79F5B9D2F.jpg)
Slide 19: Snake Oil Salesman - John Terry cartoons (www.windtoons.com/)
Slide 51: Correlation: Dilbert (dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-11-28/)
Slide 51: Correlation: Equation (hotmath.com/hotmath_help/topics/correlation-and-causal-relation.html)
Slide 52: Correlation: Lemons vs Fatalities (blogs.iq.harvard.edu/sss/archives/2009/04/correlation_is.shtml)
Slide 52: Correlation: Facebook vs Greek Bonds (tinyurl.com/a7bh3le)
Slide 53: Correlation: Ice Cream Sales vs Shark Attacks (onlineinsider.tumblr.com/post/7351752849/correlation-is-not-causation)
Slide 53: Correlation: Rock Music vs Oil Production (www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/hubbert-peak-theory-of-oil-rock/)
Slide 54: Arctic Sea Ice (www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm)
Slide 101: Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory (scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics/)
Slide 171: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing (jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-are-we-bailing-out-banks-part-iii.html)
Slide 212: Lemmings (www.greeningofgavin.com/2012/07/over-cliff-without-lemming.html)
Slides 214 & 215: Doonesbury re Critical Thinking (matt.bo.lt/critical_thinking)
Slide 216: Rodin “The Thinker” (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/The_Thinker_Musee_Rodin.jpg)
Slide 244: I Am Malala (www.defendpakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/mam.jpg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worth reading: Cargo Cult Science - Dr. Richard Feynman (calteches.library.caltech.edu/3043/1/CargoCult.pdf)
Re Offshore wind: NC Offshore Wind Coalition (www.ncoffshorewind.org/whyosw.html) & Britain's Offshore Wind Jobs (tinyurl.com/79nbxxg) &
Wind Energy Jobs Not Blowing Anyone Away (tinyurl.com/awuzn6g) & New Jersey Offshore Wind Study (tinyurl.com/7ypdu99)
Other unidentified graphics & photos are mine. Other unattributed observations are the result of private research.
© john droz, jr.

© john droz, jr.
John Droz, jr. is a physicist and has been an environmental activist for some 30 years. He has been a leading
individual on four NY statewide issues (electrical energy, water extraction, water quality, and property taxes)
and is currently working on similar NC issues (like electrical energy and sea level rise).
He received undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics from Boston College, and a graduate degree in
physics from Syracuse University. He has been a participating member of several environmental organizations (like
the Adirondack Council, Adirondack Wild, Protect, and the Sierra Club). [The science oriented views expressed in
this presentation may not necessarily reflect the political agenda of these organizations.] Due to his love of nature,
he has a Summer lakefront cottage in the Adirondacks (NY).
These areas of interest and expertise (science & environmentalism) have merged with his focus on energy matters,
especially wind energy. John’s basic position is that we should be taking aggressive measures to solve our energy
and pollution issues, but should not be wasting time and money on illusionary solutions — which are primarily
promoted by those with vested financial interests in them.
This slide presentation is copyrighted and is for personal use only. Any reproduction, quoting, referencing, or other
use of this material is prohibited without the author’s express written consent. Such consent will usually be granted
for the purpose of putting on an educational community presentation.
All information is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. If errors are noted, please email John the scientific
evidence of same and a correction will be made.
For questions, comments or permission to use any material in this presentation, please email John at:
aaprjohn@northnet.org

Science Under Assault

Science Under Assault

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked(15)

More from John Droz

More from John Droz(12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded(20)

Science Under Assault