Popular Science Settles On Consensus Over Reporting Fact

Popular Science magazine cover that has as an article, "How to Prevent America's Next TRAIN CRASH" - funny, how now Popular Science is about trying to prevent the crash in the flow of America's research funding through shutting off comments that expose fraud. Image Credit: m5.paperblog.com

Popular Science Settles On Consensus Over Reporting Truth Based In Facts

This week saw an actual sea change and weak stomach for debate on consensus over publishing comments that argue for scientific method derived facts and the truth.

This excerpted and edited from PopularScience.com -

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments
By Suzanne LaBarre - Posted 09.24.2013 at 8:15 am

Starting today, PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here's why.

Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off.
----
Another, similarly designed study found that just firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters impacted readers' perception of science.

If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
[Reference Here]

"How It Works" - Credit: Popular Science

The 'money quote' has to be:

popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics

This is what Popular Science, the magazine and website, bases all of it opinion and articles on ... popular consensus. The fact that Popular Science is shutting down comments to their consensus derived articles proves that they admit to publishing Consensus over Scientific Method derived facts.

Since WHEN is Consensus a substitute for Scientific Method?

Not once is Scientific Method mentioned as the basis of information their articles are based upon. Their statement only alludes to popular consensus and scientifically validated topics.

Further, the editors admit to trying to shape public opinion through their publishing silo with this observation - "commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch." - and therein lays the rub.

Who holds the scientific community's feet to the fire when mathematical formulas and data are shaped so that results reflect the intent of the politically-motivated public policy. Follow the money.

The biggest problem with Popular Science is that the editors are nothing more than Progressive-Minded J-School Stenographers who report what has been bought-and-paid-for Consensus objectives, rooted in politically-motivated public policy, as opposed to reporting Scientific Method derived FACTS!!!

Does the mathematical fraud perpetrated by the University of East Anglia ever get reported and calculated into the Consensus equation? At Popular Science, now that they have hit the "off" switch on comments to their published articles - we, at Oblate Spheroid, think not!

Anthropogenic Global Warming Scientists, The New “Flat Earth” Society?

Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998. But despite overwhelming signs of global cooling - China's coldest winter for 100 years and record snow levels across Northeast America - allied with temperature records showing a decline - global warming advocates still cling to the notion that the world is cooling because of global warming! Caption Credit: PrisonPlanet.com Image Credit: blahblahblog

Anthropogenic Global Warming Scientists, the new “Flat Earth” society?

Last week, a hacker revealed that a group of powerful, government-backed European scientists are controlling the results of developing global warming theory, and preventing clear debate or the development of opposing scientific evidence to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). It appears that certain more objective scientists run the risk --- if they present solid evidence contrary to the popular global warming theories --- realize they run the risk of being made objects of ridicule and marginalized in efforts to gain monies from Governments for research projects designed to discover facts ... that lead to the truth.

So on one side we have the “flat earther” powerful old-world scientists … and on the other side we have the “world is round” scientific-method based researchers who are continuing to discover facts … and thereby, the truth.

Powerful forces within the scientific community have been purposely shaping information in order to bolster a concept that, at best, is speculative and seems designed to lead to one human activity that these people think is perfectly suitable for their point-of-view ... a one-world Government, based upon a socialist model of CONTROL. This CONTROL is initially focusing on calling us to “Save the Earth From Destruction”, since a fear-based program is the only way to get free people to forsake their rights and their freedoms in the concept of climate stabilization and saving humanity from imminent destruction.

South Park's depiction of Al Gore giving a lecture that will give him greater riches through the selling of "Carbon Credits" based upon a flat Earth, AGW paradigm. Image Credit: Malagent

This excerpted and edited National Review Online –

Krauthammer's Take
On the announcement that President Obama will attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen
NRO Staff, Friday, November 27, 2009

Comments From Wednesday's Fox News All-Star Panel:

The global warming science is not junk science, but it's speculative. It's based on incomplete data. It's based on computer models that rest on assumptions — that, in turn, rest on an understanding of how the globe’s climate controls itself — that [are] extremely incomplete.

So its projections are speculative. But it pretends that, of course, that it is the hardest of all sciences and anybody who is skeptical is a denier — using a term used normally about the Holocaust, which is of course an event that actually happened as opposed to projections in global warming, which are speculative science.

So what you see in the [leaked global-warming] emails are people that are on somewhat shaky grounds. It is not as if there is no science at all in this, but there is contradictory evidence, such as the flattening of the rise in temperatures, which they cannot explain.

And their response is either suppression or manipulation or, even worse, the delegitimizing of — the personal attacks on — skeptics in an attempt to write them out of the journals, to get them fired, and all kinds of nasty stuff. … It puts a lot of their research in question.

I think what's interesting about Obama is he is going to be at the U.N. [conference in Copenhagen] to announce the [new] policy about climate change on the basis of — nothing. He is going to be proposing what the House has passed — that he knows is not going to pass in the Senate.

And we are actually a constitutional democracy where the president can't announce a policy unilaterally. It actually has to pass the two houses of the Congress, and our allies abroad know that, and they’re going to look at this announcement he is going to make and think it … extremely strange.
Reference Here>>

The United States has established no formal policy, yet our President, if allowed to do so, will gladly sign away our sovereignty in order to achieve the socialist political objectives of control found in the Copenhagen accords.

Further, scientists and Government forces who choose to use or believe in their conclusions that the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a fact, are no better than previous generations of leaders in their insistence that this Oblate Spheroid (the actual shape of the Earth) is flat. These people should be known from this moment forward as ... "Flat-Earthers"!

From The Free Dictionary:

1) flat-earth·er (flatûrther)
n.

One who stubbornly adheres to outmoded or discredited ideas: "If you don't accept the ideas derived from Adam Smith ... then you are [considered] a flat-earther" (James Fallows).

[From the long-discredited belief that the earth is flat.]

2) flat-earther

n.

Informal - a person who does not accept or is out of touch with the realities of modern life