The problem with being a forerunner is that we don’t accept most of what we are told. We have to see for ourselves. This may arise from having experienced fraudulent authority in the past or from realizing that most of what is wrong with the world is their doing.
In the past 50 years, science has been promoted to the status of being “above question”. In fact, most scientists get rather annoyed that you would even think of questioning their theories. I don’t understand why, when you look at their history.
Over those same 50 years, science has produced some of the most toxic chemicals on earth, all the while assuring the public that there was nothing to worry about. If the world is in an environmental, military, or ethical crisis, science has played a huge part in creating that crisis, while claiming it is they who have the answers to all the world’s current problems.
For more than 30 years, scientists became the main source of disinformation about the harmful effects of smoking. Did these scientists know that they were a pone in a grander scheme by the tobacco companies to mislead the public? If they had done the science, they would have known, yet they asserted that they were reliable, unbiased and ethical in their pursuit of the facts, which was a complete lie. The science and tobacco story is not an isolated one; there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of similar stories of chemicals and drugs which would later become known as dangerous, but which scientists assured us were safe. Most new drugs are approved by studies done by the companies that make the product, yet they claim the science is unbiased. They hire scientists to discredit independent studies which might refute their original findings. That is not science – it’s propaganda!
Science and academia have pointed to their achievements in order to hide their checkered past, but it is checkered, none-the-less. Six months before the banks in Ireland collapsed, a Harvard professor of economics assured investors that the banks were stable and solvent. He never declared that he was paid $100,000 to produce the report that led thousands of investors “down the garden path”. Did he commit a crime? Most people would say, “yes!”, but he was never charged for his obvious failure to do the research. Was he the reliable, unbiased, knowledgeable authority that people assumed they could trust – no? That’s not science.
Considering the state of science and its moral failure, nothing is above scrutiny; in particular, those who become incensed when asked to prove their claims. Their assertions that “peer review” raises their theories to being above question is in itself is not in the spirit of good science. Secondly, when asked “off the record” how well the peer review system works, most scientists say they don’t have the time to review papers (for which they don’t get paid). Some ask their students to determine the quality of science that is being presented in peer (not student) reviewed publications. The system has deteriorated to the point that it is unreliable in a “business” that “sells” reliability and that is not real science.
One of the best examples of failure to prove its assertions is the “climate change” fiasco. There has been an incredible amount of manipulation of the facts to present a story of “half truths”. An article about the summer ice in the Arctic (2007) claimed that the ice covered the smallest area in 30 years. The article asserted that this proved the theories of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The equally important but almost unreported facts are that while the Arctic had the smallest summer ice in 2007 for 30 years, the Antarctic had the largest summer ice in 30 years. The fact that this was never revealed in the article and dismissed by the press is damning evidence, which raises the question “why?” Furthermore, this is not an isolated “indiscretion”.
While the majority of scientists are falling into line with the IPCC’s claims that the earth is warming at a dangerous pace, the more dependable satellite climate data defies their claims. Since 2001, the warming trend of the past 20 years has leveled off in what some scientists believe is part of a natural cycle. With no warming in almost 10 years, the question begs answering: why is the IPCC and its people continuing to “sound the alarm”? Is it science?
As Al Gore said to a group of Latin American businessmen in 2011, “There is a lot of money to be made in climate change”. He was speaking about private companies (like his own) who will trade carbon credits for huge profits. The proposed carbon tax will start at 1% of the world’s GNP. The main promoters of the climate change crisis is government (IPCC). What’s not to love about a new tax which will bring in trillions of dollars, some of which will be directed to creating thousands of new jobs in science? What scientist wouldn’t love that?
Science and academia are not above being corrupted. Their past has proved it. Research grants are distributed to those who do the science that supports the preferred point of view. Results which contradict the IPCC’s platform are scorned, dismissed, buried, or punished – that’s not how science is supposed to work. It doesn’t take long for the mainstream body of scientists to fall into line – their jobs and careers are on the line. It’s only the rebels (forerunners) who shout “foul”.
Business, government, and science are all on the climate change “gravy train” with thousands of jobs already connected to the political campaign disguised as science. This number could increase 100 fold if they can get us all to submit to a world-wide carbon tax. As usual, it’s all about the money. If you don’t think this could happen, then consider that a relatively small group of financial pirates manipulated information, systems and perceptions to plunder the US and most of the world of trillions of dollars. The biggest scam in history and they all got away with it. It was only possible with the compliance and/or support of academics, government, and scientists who had to have known. Trust is, and should be, at an all time low. Nothing is above personal scrutiny, including academia and science. The truth is hard to find sometimes but it is out there.