Post modern science

I copied this from "Four questions on Climate Change" by Garth Partridge:

"But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very edge of what is called post-modern (as opposed to post-normal) science. Post-modern science is a counterpart of the relativist world of post-modern art and design. It is a much more dangerous beast where results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs, and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied(18). Post-modern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day."

This paragraph reminded me of the smear job on Dr Susan Crockford, which is best documented in the following paragraphs by "Donna Laframboise" at "nofrakkingconsencus"

"Last November, a shocking paper was published online. It has now appeared in the print edition of the journal BioScience. Titled “Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate Change Denial by Proxy,” the PDF version fills five pages of text, followed by two pages of references. This is an assault by a gang of 14 authors on an individual scholar.

The target is Susan Crockford, a Canadian zoologist and adjunct professor with more than 35 years experience in her field. As the author of PolarBearScience.com, Crockford performs a public service. She encourages us to look past activist spin and media hype. Not everything we’re told about polar bears, she says, rests on a solid foundation."
I think I'll leave this post as is. Lately I've been referring to the Ministry of Truth whenever I tweet about media lies, which seem to be very common nowadays. This is definitely looking like 1984 is coming a few years late. But it's coming.


Chemical warfare in Syria

Let's see: Assad is winning the war, is a few days away from having control of the Damascus suburb that was controlled by Jaysh al Islam, a Sunni rebel group funded by Saudi Arabia. So the Assad military decides to complicate things knowing that it can cause US attacks ... and they launch one (or two?) Barrel of chlorine from a helicopter.

 On April 12, the US Secretary of Defense declared that he had no proof that the Syrians had released the chlorine, and 36 hours later they launched 100 Tomahawk pickaxes, some of which destroyed a building that had been inspected by the organization OPCW of the UN, which declared that the building had no violation of chemical weapons control treaties.

A few hours before the US attack, a group of OPCW inspectors arrived in Lebanon to inspect the places affected by the alleged attack with the chlorine barrel. But they could not travel to Damascus because the US was launching missiles. In other words, the "urgent" action of the US was carried out in such a way that neutral inspectors could not do their job.

Another issue that we must consider is that Trump violated a resolution of the Congress, called "the War Powers Act" which requires the president to ask permission to make acts of war unless US soldiers or the country has been attacked. Of course Trump also violated international law. Even more worrying is that in the press we only see propaganda articles, nobody gives a professional analysis. They talk about the propaganda that talks about chemical weapons without mentioning that in a final the story is reduced to "a barrel of chlorine".

And this tells me that we are in very ugly times, where a very erratic president of orange hair with a counselor known for his irresponsibility receives automatic support from submissive leaders and a press that has gone down to the bottom of professionalism. In this 21st century we already have the Ministry of Truth, and of course we are about to fall into the clutches of Big Brother or his Chinese, Russian and Saudi enemies.

This looks very very black. Think well what they do. There is still time to be rational and avoid a nuclear war.