"Science Under Fire from 'merchants of doubt'": US historian

[Jarod]

Hi, Jarod.

Could you elaborate? Which elites and which science story are you referring to? Who are "the rank and file scientists"? What is "the mainstream consensus"? Does the "them" in the sentence refer to the elites?

Not offended. Just waiting for clarification before I martyr myself.

Hi Merry, Glad you are not offended. I'm not offended you asking me to clarify, because I'm having a tough time articulating here.

There are three areas used to control the masses, the three M's..... Money(banking), Media, Military(wars).

The tactic we experience most here is the Media. It's important that enough people understand these Media tactics so they will not have enough affect on us.

The Elites are the people controlling world events. To complicated to explain in one thread. I suggest watching at least one of the two videos. The first in is the watered down version and is free to watch on vimeo if you search for it. The second video provides tons of history going back hundreds of years.

Here are two videos that will describe where I'm coming from.(might need to read the definition of cognitive dissonance before watching though.

http://www.thrivemovement.com/

this second video is super long, so just watch the last 30 minutes if you don't have 5 hrs to learn the whole history of how the Rothchilds have taken over the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd1Twnoq-Dw

In this particular article, I;m suggesting we may be seeing the Elites throwing another Media tantrum. Look at how Fiona smiles at the interviewers. Very telling facial language.

Fiona(science media centre) and the Levinson inquiry tesimony is another staged tantrum

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...a-Centre-gives-evidence-Includes-MMR-and-XMRV

The rank and file Scientists are the ones are not counted in the consensus. 1) Wakefield, 2) Burzynski, 3) Dr Kennth Freidman, 4) Defreitas, 5) Mikovitz, etc....

There are certain types of forbiden knowledge we are not allowed to have or use on this planet.

1) One is vaccines can contribute to health problems.

2) Another is there may be natural cures for cancer.

3) We are not suppposed to educate on ME.

4) etc....

5) etc.....

The mainstream guys are put in place at top universities and positions of power to support the status quo the elites want to maintain....No doubt the science media centre was put in place to aid in that function also....

The Elites use deception and lies profusely in the media to fool the masses. Hence why four people essentially control all the Media in the world....

The world runs on lies and deception.... The Elites controlling our reality have totally different moral boundries. Killing a million people in war is justified to achieve their goals. Totally unthinkable to the average person, but no problem when you are going for billions of dollars and dealing with sheeple.

Sorry I can't explain how it all relates to the article better at the moment. Please watch the videos, that will help you get the bigger picture.

Hugs and love to you all.

 

[biophile]

These type of discussions about skepticism vs denialism make me nervous because as a community we are dismissed as the minority group of an irrational denialist campaign for engaging in healthy skepticism with the "soft sciences" of CBT/GET and the cognitive behavioural model. Almost all of the reasonable arguments in the Yahoo! article made against other denialists have been inappropriately directed towards us in some form or another. Of course, our detractors would probably respond with "that's because it's true".

 

[*GG*]

RE: Global Warming. Is it not true that even if we stopped producing CO2, that with the amount in the atmosphere, that drastic reductions would barely do anything to drop the increase in temperature that is supposed to happen. Is there no feedback mechanism that would/could lessen the supposed consequences.

I'm sceptical, seems like a very expensive boondoogle that will likely do very little for the problem". Rich countries will spend lots of wealth with little effect. People will lose lots of freedom and become "slaves" to big gov't etc..Politiicians.

I have also read that our gov't have spent Billionson studying global warming, and the opposition have spent a tiny fraction of that.

GG

 

[Little Bluestem]

We don't have such a problem with the more extreme forms of anti-reality politics which take place in America,

What an apt description. I would laugh if it didn't hurt so much.

 

[Merry]

Sorry I can't explain how it all relates to the article better at the moment. Please watch the videos, that will help you get the bigger picture.

"[H]ow the Rothchilds have taken over the world"? Geez, Jarrod. I don't like where this discussion seems to be headed. I have not watched the videos and am not sure I want to.

People with money and power are not one group, one Elite. They do have competing interests.

Without having read the book that is the subject of the article, I can't say more.

Maybe it's time for this thread to die a natural death.

 

[Esther12]

"[H]ow the Rothchilds have taken over the world"? Geez, Jarrod. I don't like where this discussion seems to be headed. I have not watched the videos and am not sure I want to.

Unfortunately, it does seem that a commitment to questioning authority easily leads to even more unreasonable ideas. It's important to also be sceptical of those claiming to have uncovered a conspiracy!

The Thrive section on 'The Code' did not inspire confidence.

A good first pass test for hard versus soft science is whether or not they use objective data. The use of only strictly objective data indicates hard science, the use of only subjective data is at best a soft science, and arguable not a science at all.

This is of course only an approximation. It is very difficult to define hard versus soft sciences. Soft science is also not a derogatory phrase. It simply means the topic under study is so complex or subtle that it is very difficult to pursue rational objective analysis. The soft sciences are studying complex topics and it is still possible for soft sciences to be rational.

It is a tricky one, and it was interesting to read your thoughts. I don't think that too much emphasis can be given to 'objective data' though, as this can also be hard to define, and also be used for 'soft sciences' eg: economics, history, etc.

 

[SOC]

It is a tricky one, and it was interesting to read your thoughts. I don't think that too much emphasis can be given to 'objective data' though, as this can also be hard to define, and also be used for 'soft sciences' eg: economics, history, etc.

History has little genuinely objective data, and the interpretations of the very little objective data that exits extrapolates far beyond the existing data. As Alex said, this is because history is so complex and subtle that rational objective analysis is very difficult. Also, history is, by definition, in the past, which makes the collection of truly objective data very difficult since the researcher has no control over the multitude of factors affecting the data.

Objective data is data that can be measured and requires no opinion or judgement to take. Objective measurements can be replicated by other researchers to confirm or not the original data. For example, data from blood tests is objective. Data from mental health assessments is subjective -- the researcher must make judgments to collect the data.

Economics uses a lot of objective data, but frequently extrapolates the data in order to make predictions. Those predictions require the researcher to make some judgment calls about how much the future is going to be like the past. So while their data may objective, how they use it contains numerous subjective valuations. That's why we have to keep a close eye on 'em. Politicians and the media often misinterpret objective data (and economics is a frequent victim of this) by putting a spin on it, or ignoring part of the data.

One of my biggest complaints about the biopsychosocial school is that they claim that since the objective data is not yet conclusive, we should throw it all out in favor of their subjective data. That's completely illogical. Their subjective data is no more conclusive and doesn't take into account the objective data available, nor do they take the objective data they could such as measurable fatigue or physical function data.

 

[Jarod]

Hi Merry,

The stuff I posted is not scary stuff and won't bite anybody. It is done in a professional and factual way.

Let me say this before everybody dimisses it. It is all verifiable information based on historial facts, unfortunately they don't teach it in history classes.

I'm sorry to bring it up, but it is extremely important to be aware of and answers many questions. The most important question it answered for me is why we can not get legitimate questions on cancer, CFS, and autism. I think most autism researchers understand there is a problem, but not the full extent and history. Dr Goldberg made it clear in his presentation for autism that there is something really wrong.

When we are bombarded with constant slightly inaccurate/incomplete information from the media, educational system, and journals, we can not make the right decisions.

However, The only way to make progress is to understand the box the Elites have put us in. If we all go around with our heads in the sand believing this propaganda, we are going to be in deeper trouble. That is what got us in to this mess in the first place.


Most people will dismiss it at first or forever. That is why I mentioned understanding cognitive dissonance first.

"[H]ow the Rothchilds have taken over the world"? Geez, Jarrod. I don't like where this discussion seems to be headed. I have not watched the videos and am not sure I want to.

People with money and power are not one group, one Elite. They do have competing interests.

Without having read the book that is the subject of the article, I can't say more.

Maybe it's time for this thread to die a natural death.

 

[Jarod]

Esther.

What part specifically is not accurate and factual?

Unfortunately, it does seem that a commitment to questioning authority easily leads to even more unreasonable ideas. It's important to also be sceptical of those claiming to have uncovered a conspiracy!

The Thrive section on 'The Code' did not inspire confidence.

 

[Esther12]

What part specifically is not accurate and factual?

http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_code

In this section of the site you can explore:

how the torus reveals the structure and flow of universal energy;

how ancient cultures embedded their knowledge of the code;

how extraterrestrials may be using it to travel between star systems;

how the code is being communicated through crop circles;

how new energy inventors are using the code to power revolutionary devices that can change how we live.

 

[Jarod]

http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_code

That's all fascination stuff, but too much to cover here. There are 100 billion planets capable of supporting life though.

What do you disagree with when it comes to the global Elites control structure. What thrive calls the "Global domination agenda"? The aliens don't pertain to this conversation.

http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_problem-gda

 

[Jarod]

HI Esther12.

I believe there are people posting on this forum that try to influence public perception in a way that benefits special interest groups. Do you believe anybody is here trying to influence public perception?

This directly relates to my assertion there is a Global Domination Agenda.

 

[mellster]

Most of the "uncovered" stuff contains some truth IMO and I do think it is important to challenge the media, authorities and ruling classes - on a constant basis. But the media tricks of disinformation, selective information and too much information are not new, it's just that with the explosion of the internet and other media it is so much easier to generate information and let it work these days.That being said, I don't subscribe to a global conspsiracy that covers politics in every angle of the world as the world is way to chaotic and there are too many variables that can and will get out of control. I view the "ruling class" more as a heterogenous amorphous mass of those who are set for life through their family line and crony capitalism, those who accidentally became very wealthy an powerful and those who seized power in the right moment or worked hard or smart and it paid off, and they do not have all uniform interests. Still good to watch this stuff as it gives food for thought.

 

[Esther12]

That's all fascination stuff, but too much to cover here. There are 100 billion planets capable of supporting life though.

What do you disagree with when it comes to the global Elites control structure. What thrive calls the "Global domination agenda"? The aliens don't pertain to this conversation.

http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_problem-gda

I do not think it's worth spending much time reading about the theories of Elite control structures promoted by those who believe that crop circles are communicating a special code which is being used by energy innovators to power revolutionary devices. For writing on those sorts of topics, I think some Noam Chomsky would be a more worthwhile use of time (not that I agree with everything he claims... but his work is usually pretty evidence based and well argued, and doesn't tend to feature magic codes, aliens or lizard people).

I believe there are people posting on this forum that try to influence public perception in a way that benefits special interest groups. Do you believe anybody is here trying to influence public perception?

This directly relates to my assertion there is a Global Domination Agenda.

I expect that most public communication is intended, to some extent, to influence public perception. That's why we communicate. I don't think that this forum is likely to attract the attention of those who are in a position of global dominance though.

 

[Jarod]

It takes an open mind to the evidence, and seeing past deception if one wants to know the truth. :victory:

I posted a nice safe "thrive" link to expose people to some of what is going on. Safe enough to watch with your children and grandhildren. Nothing had "lizard people" in it.

Now that everybody is in complete cognitive dissonance mode, It will be more difficult to get through. (

For the people that are still listening......:tongue:

You can start by learning the federal reserve is a private bank and not a government agency. It was created with the help of JP Morgan back in 1913.

The federal reserve prints money out of thin air and loans it to the american people at whatever interest rate the banksters choose. Basically takes all our tax money as interest on debt! :innocent1:

There is a book about it called the Creature from Jekyl Island (island which the banksters created it).

The title refers to the formation of the Federal Reserve System, which occurred at a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910. It was at this meeting, as Griffin relates, that the "Money Trust", composed of the richest and most powerful bankers in the world, along with a U.S. Senator, wrote the proposal to launch the Federal Reserve System (which Griffin calls a banking cartel) to control the financial system so that the bankers will always come out on top.

http://www.google.com/products/cata...a=X&ei=baV5T974CYT9iQKDg-ynDg&ved=0CFIQ8wIwAw

 

[Esther12]

Don't have the energy to break it all down at the moment. But it starts off with "the naysayers" paid by special "interest groups"..... yada yada. Well the it is the mainstream guys paid by the special interest groups. And the naysayers our the little scientists and patients trying to expose the big pharma/government collusion monster.

Esther12. I think there are prolls on the internet and often these threads attract them. They start throwing around "conspiracy" and terms designed to push people's buttons and throw them in disbelief mode.

I think that it's a shame that some people now think that all talk of 'conspiracy' is likely to be unreasonable. Defined correctly, conspiracies are common-place, and an important part of our history and current society: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy

When a Police officer decides to cover-up for one of his colleagues out of a sense of loyalty, then this is a type of conspiracy. Just looking back at the entirely mainstream and accepted historical record will provide plenty of examples of conspiracies by governments, powerful interest groups, etc. Often there is a sad disinterest in keeping informed about the grimmer side of our history.

I think that one of the reasons which many people are now drawn towards an instinctive dismissal of anything that sounds like a 'conspiracy', and prefer to just assume that they can trust those in positions of power and authority to act fairly, is that many of the noisier people promoting a more cynical view seem to also hold silly beliefs about codes in crop circles, lizard-men, Bush planning 9/11, the illuminati, etc.

I've had followers of David Icke insist that his views on global power structures, and the conspiracies that they hide are entirely accurate - it's just a shame that he also seems to believe the lizard-people are in power. This sort of thing cannot be taken seriously, and I entirely understand why people prefer to just trust that everything is working as it's supposed to, rather than spend their time trawling through the evidence collated by those who believe such transparently silly things.

While I expect that there will be conspiracies taking place which are not aware of, we still have a responsibility to limit our beliefs to what is shown by the available evidence - although no responsibility to assume that those acting in positions of power and responsibility are now any more virtuous than our history would lead us to expect.

Does talk about free energy and possible influence on ancient civilizations when it comes to the pyramids etc. The crop circles are interesting is one actually looks at the evidence.

I do not think that my disinterest in theories about crop circles communicating information of free energy sources which were used by ancient civilisations is due to my having not actually looked at the evidence.

 

[Jarod]

Hi Esther12. You picked up a post that I had edited. Sorry about that.

You have succeeded again at throwing everybody into cognitive dissonance mode. I actually want people to look at those links and videos.

I doubt I will change everybody's mind on how the system works.

It would be good to wake up some of the people supporting the whole disinformation campaign though.....