Study: Whites Must Not Be Civil To Non-Whites (really!)

White Civility is Racist, Promoting White Supremacy and Whiteness
Evil, Evil, Evil)

Civility and White Institutional Presence: An Exploration of White Students' Understanding of Race-Talk at a Traditionally White Institution

ABSTRACT

In this study, the authors draw upon critical whiteness studies to explore how White students' understanding of race-talk within higher education (re)produces whiteness. Through an analysis of interview data, they generated 3 categories describing whiteness-informed civility (WIC): (a) WIC functions to create a good White identity, (b) WIC functions to erase racial identity, and (c) WIC functions to assert control of space. These thematic concepts show how WIC is characterized by logics of race-evasion, avoidance of race-talk, and exclusion of people of color. The authors conclude by offering ways for instructors to interrogate WIC through classroom practices informed by critical communication pedagogy.

…"Civility within higher education is a racialized, rather than universal, norm."

The authors (both white) have defined 3 categories of "civility" describing whiteness-informed civility (WIC):

(a) WIC functions to create a good White identity: I.e., treat with courtesy. This is bad because it promotes “Good Whiteness” and thus White Supremacy.

(b) WIC functions to erase racial identity: “I don’t see race; I see a person”. This is race-talk evasion, and that is Whiteness and White Supremacy.

(c) WIC functions to assert control of space. Segregation.

Civility is therefore a racist tactic used by whites to suppress/oppress non-whites. Apparently what is desired by these two white authors is blunt race-talk, which is not civil.

It is interesting that in all Leftist attacks on Whites and Whiteness, the criticisms leave no alternative for the white person to use. For example, if courtesy is not allowed, and ignoring race is not allowed, then the resulting “race-talk” when encountering a non-white must be non-courteous, and race-oriented.

Think about that the next time you encounter a POC (person of color). You must be rude and address that person’s race and zis/zer place in the hierarchy of man, based on skin tone (the only marker of race for the Left). Now that would certainly be an event to observe from a safe distance.

Now this: …"Civility within higher education is a racialized, rather than universal, norm."

As a white potentially encountering a non-white, I imagine that this is quite valid; at least within current cultural social connections race is hard to ignore. And perhaps civility is always “racialized” in that context. It certainly will be under the direction of these authors.

But whose fault is the perpetual class war between races? Class war is not a white value; class war is a Leftist value, and has been since the days of Democrat-dominated Slavery. And this entire “study” is following the skeletal Leftist narrative which demands that there be conflict engendered by whites against non-whites, and never peaceful community with non-whites. This study, by virtue of prejudicing the inputs, intends to show that there is no way around it; racism is a first principle of Whiteness, a Leftist condemnation of the souls of whites everywhere.

The rational error here is obvious: The original premise goes against the larger observation, which is that it is not – NOT – necessary to have “race-talk” with every “not my race” person, every time one meets one. In fact, this would be a disaster of the first order, especially given the conditions which the authors place on such race-talk contacts.

Further, the three “types of civility” are fully bogus. Types (a) and (b) are pegged as actual, genuine civility between the white and the non-white, which is condemned out-of-hand as promoting the white as a “good” white, which immediately connects imaginarily to White Supremacy.

So being a civil, “good” person is damned as a racist act of suppression/oppression by the white, against the beleaguered non-white.

As is all too common with Leftist projections, the unreasonable presuppositions are in place in order for the Left to place class condemnation on the selected Oppressor Class. In this instance, the whites have no recourse. Any and everything they do within the boundaries of this set of presuppositions is declared officially racist. Further, the consequential, if unmentioned, choice – rude race-talk – with all People of Color, in every encounter, is also racist.

Finally, it is apparent that rude race-talk is, in fact, what many campus radicals want: except they want to be the rude party, screaming "shut up and listen" while they spit expletives and hate in the faces of their victims. When one does listen, what one hears is eliminationist Marxist rhetoric in full hate mode, which cannot be hate speech because only whites can do that.

If the POC actually obtain their desire to eliminate or at least completely nullify the White race and Whiteness in general, what will remain is visible in the blue cities - Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore - where Leftism has ruled for decades. And of course in the No Go Zones of France, Germany, Sweden, Britain. Under Leftism, no options are pretty.

Science Rule Zero

Saw this somewhere, and stole it:

Rule Zero of Science (opinion is non-evidence, and overwhelming opinion is overwhelming non-evidence).

There are two faux sciences that try the "whelm" approach. When they can't produce any actual truth, not even contingent truth, then they go for FORCE. It's the Leftist way. Study Communism/Fascism and you find FORCE.

It's the fallback of all bullies, who are wholly incapable of persuasion due to a lack of rational capacity and a lack of rational evidence. The bullies want your lunch money and are incapable of providing a reason for you to give it to them. Next step: Force.

Put the bullies in charge of a non-empirical "science" and you get: Force.

When a science is worshiped by the Hollywood moronistas, who haven't a clue about a) science, or b) evidence, or c) morals, then you get bullies calling for Force to punish those who do have those things.

The hate campaign du jour is calling for arrest, trials and death for "deniers". There's no chance of that happening of course, but it does signal an adequate amount of hatred to their peer haters.

Mathematical Error In Climate Models?

What we know for certain is that (a) data must be manipulated in order to fit the curve; (b) the temperature hiatus is now long enough to have been predictable, if the models were accurate; (c) models do not sufficiently represent the feedback effects of El Nino, nor the actual increased production of polar ice, and its subsequent influence; (d) denial of significance of solar influence is fatal flaw. Extrapolation of annual data into next-year, single-year data while denying the annual granularity of "climate change" is intellectually dishonest, and reflects on the quality of the non-falsifiable "science".

PBS: Where Science Goes to Die

Last night PBS aired a show called the Forces of Nature (I think it was). It went breathless about how everything that exists does so due to electromagnetic forces and gravity. I missed the first 15 minutes or so, but it appeared that they were pushing the "balance" of forces and the necessity of symmetry. Two things were obvious.

First, the concept of the hexagon was elevated to a mystical status of wondrous symmetry as snowflakes were animated and filmed. Hexagonal due to the shape of water molecules? Some sort of resolution due to minimizing energy requirements to provide the magical hexagonal shape? Why, hexagons are everywhere, like bee's honey combs and other stuff.

What they failed to mention is that hexagons are a mathematical necessity due to adjacent circles: simple high school geometry. Put a circle somewhere. Then make a circle, same size, which touches the first circle, next to the first circle. Repeat that going around the first circle, making circles which touch and don't overlap. That amounts to six circles surrounding the first circle. That is the mathematical necessity of the hexagon in nature, not all that other crap about forces and symmetry. Look at a stack of pipes endwise. A stack of firewood. Sure, they're held there by gravity, but they could also be banded that way. The hexagonal necessity is still mathematical, not force.

The second half was focused on the force of... evolution. Yep. Evolution is now a force according to the perpetual evolution TV programs, just like gravity and electromagnetic forces, only it is restricted to living things. And living things are representative of the magic of symmetry, too. Well, not all living things, of course, like prokaryotes. Or Plants. Or even all eukaryotes. But there are quite a lot that do have symmetry: bilaterialism. Meaning that there are complementary right and left halves, but not front and back halves. And not internal things either, like intestines, livers, hearts, entire legions of feedback control systems, delivery channels, glands etc. But some are, like lungs and kindeys and brain halves which don't function symmetrically, but are physically symmetrical.

Apparently bilateralism is initiated by HOX genes, or at least described there in code. If that is the case, then the chemical property of the gene is the special force within life which is causal for bilateralism. But just for certain eukaryotes, of course.

Projecting this knowledge onto the additional evolutionary claim that there is no essence to life, that life is merely deterministic chemical activity resolving to the laws of electromagnetism, then this proposition is testable. The genetic chemistry, when applied to correctly assembled, lifeless materials which also have no life essence, should do its job and create bilateralism there as well. Symmetrical rocks should ensue due to the application of this new force, and easily, since their complexity is far less then that of life, but their essences are equal. They are merely electrochemically influenced molecular structures... just like life.

That is absurd, of course. But the challenge of how bilateralism came to be a feature demands an answer to the following paradox: which came first, physical bilateralism, or code for bilateralism? It occurred rapidly in the Cambrian Explosion epoch, along with non-bilateral plants and non-bilateral eukaryotes as well.

It's very similar to the other paradoxes, such as the creation of sexual reproduction which requires very high dual, complementary complexity coming into existence simultaneously; and other conundrums such as the pupation of butterflies, for example, where one physical creature is transformed into a completely different form in the secrecy of its cocoon.

And the ultimate paradox: how did a living cell, filled with thousands of necessary processes come into existence, while containing the coded molecule which precisely defines that cell embedded in the cell and ready to divide for procreation. It's no wonder they deny any intellectual responsibility for answering that.

But back to PBS. The program was to be about the forces of nature, which one might delusionally think that would be the four forces of physics. But this is PBS. It's agenda is showing.

All You Really Need to Know: It's Duke University

Duke fraud case highlights financial risks for universities

Even the Science Magazine headline is phony. It should read: Duke fraud case highlights FRAUD risks for universities. I think students go to Duke in order to learn fraud; it seems to be fundamental to that institution. And fraud is indiscernable in "sciences" which cannot be falsified, so those sciences are the most precious.

Leftist Science

Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change

AGW: It's not contingent science anymore; It's the law.

These women are neither scientists, nor are they educators. They are Leftist propagandists.

Ski Slopes Are Sexist (Don't Tell The Skiers)

Academic Absurdity of the Week: Sexist Ski Slopes?

"Did you know that skiing is a sexist sport? It turns out that even the ski slopes themselves are sexist! Or something. As usual, it’s hard to make out exactly what’s being said. but you’ll never be able to ski down a steep mogul run again, never mind use fast wax on your totally-phallically skis (and don’t even ask about ski poles I think), without Freud in your head, according to this article in the International Review for the Sociology of Sport:

Constructing masculinized sportscapes: Skiing, gender and nature in British Columbia, Canada

Mark CJ Stoddart, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada.

Abstract

Sport sociology has provided a significant body of critical research on gender and social inequality within outdoor sport. Less attention is given to how the social construction of sport landscapes shapes gendered power relations. This article examines how skiing landscapes are constructed as masculinized spaces. The mountainous sublime is a site for performing athletic, risk-seeking masculinity.The backcountry and advanced terrain at ski resorts also appear as masculinized places. By contrast, less risky areas of the skiing landscape may be interpreted as ‘gender-neutral’ or feminized space. Through skiing, participants construct the meaning of gender and place, privileging masculinized versions of the sport.

As always, you can own a complete copy of this gem for a mere $36."

As For The AGW Models...

'Rule-breaker' forests in Andes and Amazon revealed by remote spectral sensing

"They discovered that the leaf economics of forests are not as straightforward as scientists once believed.

"We found that Andean and Amazonian forests have evolved into diverse communities that break simple ecological 'rules' previously developed through field-based studies. These forests are actually much more interesting and functionally diverse than previously thought, and have sorted themselves out across a variety of environmental templates like geology, elevation and temperature," Asner added.

It turns out the forests aren't so simply split between high-rollers and prudent investors either. Rather the authors found a continuum of forest canopy nitrogen, phosphorous, and leaf mass relationships that are sensitive to the enormous range of geophysical conditions found throughout the region.

Why do these findings matter?"

Why indeed. The computer models used to be the final word on the subject, and were claimed to be highly accurate representations of the earth and its eco-systems. In reality, the modelers have no clue as to the bio-responses to warming, much less the purely visual clues which Michael Mann claims prove the human causation. It is no co-incidence that Mann is the one selected to represent the "science" to the eager Democrat True Believers^TM. It is easy to profit from AGW, and Mann is prolific in that pursuit.

The Leftist Assault On Dissent

Dem Congressmen: First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Global Warming Skeptics

"California congressmen wrote a letter to state attorney general Kamala Harris claiming the freedom of speech “is not designed to protect fraud and deceit” of the likes being spread by oil company ExxonMobil about global warming.

Nineteen Democratic lawmakers told Harris her “investigation as to whether ExxonMobil lied about the truth of climate change and misled investors does not constitute an effort to silence speech or scientific research.

“The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not protect companies from defrauding the American people or improperly disclosing information to their shareholders,” lawmakers, including California Reps. Maxine Waters and Ted Lieu, wrote to Harris.

Harris joined attorneys general from New York, Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands in investigating Exxon’s global warming stance based on reporting by liberal journalists."

Given that the AGW cause/effect connection is not empirical but is purely speculated, plus the failure of the computer speculations over the past two decades, plus historical knowledge of High CO2 without the heating deemed necessary by the speculations, the "science" of speculation is ripe for dissent. But it is also ripe for totalitarian exploitation in pursuit of global government - by the totalitarians, who else?

Actual science is not the Left's strong suit. The best science in the world is still merely contingent and never Truth as the Leftists believe. But to believe otherwise does not benefit their narrative.

Climate Fraud: The Real Motivation

From IBD

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
The climate alarmists want the public to think they are trying to avoid a burnt world, but what they really want is something altogether different. (AP)

"3/29/2016

Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven’t been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.

We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Mad as they are, Edenhofer’s comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish — because, as Edenhofer said, “in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas” — while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they “have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community,” he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”

“What if global warming isn’t only a crisis?” Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. “What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”

In her mind, the world has to “change, or be changed” because an “economic system” — meaning free-market capitalism — has caused environmental “wreckage.”

This is how the global warming alarmist community thinks. It wants to frighten, intimidate and then assume command. It needs a “crisis” to take advantage of, a hobgoblin to menace the people, so that they will beg for protection from the imaginary threat. The alarmists’ “better world” is one in which they rule a global welfare state. They’ve admitted this themselves."
[Emphasis Added]

If you don't have a crisis sufficient to your purpose, why, just create one. Best of all, do it with the tax money of the commoners you wish to control.

What this means, of course, is that no amount of actual data would change the path of the climate fanatics (fully employed due to the fabrication of "crisis" hysteria). This is Leftist Messiahism in pursuit of a World Order. Gaia is the Victimhood entity, and the entire civilized first world is the Oppressor Class - as well as free enterprise.

This is the equivalent of a cancer which actually wants to consume its host so that the cancer becomes the host. But of course, a cancer cannot self-sustain without a viable host, regardless of how highly the cancer regards itself.

Most third world societies are remaining third world not due to oppression of the first world. They remain third world because they have not thrown off their own cancers which strangle them.

Real Science Vs. Leftist Narrative

An open letter to the Virginia Tech community

No doubt the entire population of VA-Tech will require a communal safe room full of thousands of puppies and soft music.

Militant Anthropology: A Science Lost

Turning Anthropology from Science into Political Activism

Beginning in the 1960s, a movement developed in academia with the aim of transforming scholarly pursuits into instruments of social change. It was motivated by intellectually fashionable ideas, such as Marxism and feminism, and by a trendy antipathy towards Western Civilization in general. Eventually it overwhelmed the humanities and deeply affected the social sciences.

The impact of the movement on my field, anthropology, was varied, since anthropology, with its four sub-disciplines, spans the range of scholarly activity from the physical sciences through the social sciences to the humanities. Three of those sub-disciplines (archeology, physical anthropology, and linguistic anthropology) have remained mostly unscathed by the efforts to transform anthropology into another politically correct university outpost.

But the largest of the four, sociocultural anthropology (the study of social and cultural variation around the world), has been greatly distorted. It has been redefined from a science to an instrument of political ideology.

It is very revealing that in 2010, the executive committee of the American Anthropological Association (AAA), the discipline’s major professional organization, dropped the word “science” from its mission statement, and elsewhere. Since then the organization has focused on trendy issues such as the environment, violence, climate change, race, etc.

The AAA now wants “to help solve problems” rather than to understand and explain reality. Different sections have appeared within the AAA reflecting radical politics, such as the Association for Feminist Anthropology, the Association for Queer Anthropology (their designation), and other internal organizations that are highly politicized. Committees expend much energy on political issues and the formation of task forces like the Global Climate Task Force and the Task Force on Race and Racism.

One element in politicized anthropology is the repudiation of the West’s colonial past. Western expansion, as seen from this perspective, was not a phase in history, similar in many respects to the phenomenon of cyclical empires that goes back to the beginning of civilization, but rather an abiding sin for which activist anthropologists have vowed to make amends.

One of them is UC Berkeley professor Nancy Scheper-Hughes, who has often called for the redefinition of anthropology from an academic discipline to what she calls “forensic” anthropology. (See, e.g. her essay “The Primacy of the Ethical: Propositions for a Militant Anthropology” in the June 1995 issue of Current Anthropology.) What she means by that is that anthropology should move from objective scientific analysis to activism, with a focus on the “crimes” committed by earlier anthropologists.

The self-anointed, self-justified, auto-holy messiahs are everywhere. At least here they removed the designation as a "science" from their self-description. But their crusade should not retain the name, "anthropology", either; the activity's name should reflect "personal retribution through self-righteousness".

Read it all, including comments if you have time, THERE.

Biased Science Is NOT Science, It Is Just Narrative Confirmation

Science must be rigorously tested and monitored like any business which feeds at the public teat. The ongoing revelations of Leftist corruption reveal what happens in a political monoculture, especially one which is not interested in actual truth, but rather the support of their agenda. Scientism fans will obviously buy whatever sewage the monoculture produces without questioning either methods, data, or premises.

Liberal bias in academia is destroying the integrity of research
NYPost; Naomi Schaefer Riley

How reliable is academic research? Not very, it seems, after noting that the Journal of Vibration and Control, a reputable academic publication, had to retract 60 different papers over the summer.

The editors concluded that Chen-Yuan Chen, a researcher in Taiwan, had created a “peer-review and citation ring.”

OK, it’s not exactly a “Sopranos” plot. But it’s pretty shady for the world of higher education. Chen went to great lengths to make up fake email addresses and even assume the names of other scientists to write approvingly of his own research.

In a sense, though, he was just exploiting the deep flaws of the peer review system. The academy has become a kind of club where friends give friends flattering assessments of research, which essentially guarantees promotions and tenure.

Here’s how the former editor of the British Medical Journal explained peer review:

“The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This … is little better than tossing a coin.”

But it’s not just the clubbiness of academia that is to blame. There is such ideological uniformity in the ivory tower that no one ever questions the important assumptions behind anyone else’s research.

A forthcoming article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, published by Cambridge University Press, describes this problem in detail.

The article, whose lead author is New York University’s Jonathan Haidt, finds that academic psychology has lost nearly all of its political diversity in the last 50 years and that the validity of the discipline has been “undermined” as a result.

And while the authors note that greater political diversity would improve things, nonliberals face a “hostile climate and discrimination.”

Just how bad is the problem? It’s not just that few academics voted for Mitt Romney. At a recent meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Haidt asked the audience by show of hands to identify themselves by their political orientation.

He estimates the resulting ratio of liberals to conservatives at 267:1. If anything, it was probably worse, since many conservatives don’t want to be “outed” to their colleagues.

This ideological one-sidedness, according to Haidt and his co-authors, has consequences far beyond the common bullying of conservative students.

They cite, for instance, a paper about the “denial of environmental realities” by some of their colleagues in the British Journal of Social Psychology.

When subjects exhibit the “denial of the possibility of an ecological crisis” or the “denial of the danger of disrupting balance in nature,” the authors characterize them as tapping into a “primitive” belief system.

In other words, if you don’t subscribe to modern environmentalist propaganda, you might as well be Caveman Og, swinging your club at wooly mammoths. Haidt and his colleagues patiently explain how terms like “balance of nature” and “crisis” are vague.

Since they are not “facts,” it’s not possible to be “in denial” about them. “Disagreement,” they write, “is not the same … as denial.” Such concepts are skipped over in grad school, apparently.

RELATED: UNC philosophy professor warns: ‘Progressive privilege’ abounds in academia

Another paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that people “high in right-wing authoritarianism were more likely to go along with the unethical decisions of leaders.”

Forget about defining right-wing authoritarianism. What constitutes “unethical behavior”?

“Not formally taking a female colleague’s side in her sexual harassment complaint against her subordinate (given little information about the case) and a worker placing the well-being of his or her company above unspecified harms to the environment.”

Obviously, if you engage in such behavior, you’re simply a bad person.

Christian Smith, a professor of sociology at Notre Dame, has spent a career trying to combat the groupthink of academia. In his new book, “The Sacred Project of American Sociology,” Smith offers a scathing indictment of his discipline.

In his field of study, the sociology of religion, most professors begin with the assumption that “ordinary people’s naïve experiences of religious faith and sacred practice ought not to be taken seriously on their own terms,” but are better understood through the concepts of “status struggles, coping mechanisms, gender inequalities, class interests, social control, etc.”

In other words, religion is the opiate of the masses. End of argument.

If that’s where you start, it’s pretty clear where you’re going to end up. The only way to combat the production of academic research that simply confirms what liberal academics already believe is by having someone there to question these assumptions.

As Smith tells me, “Knowledge is advanced through the clash of rival interpretations of the evidence.”

The professors must have missed that memo.

Bad Science, and Possibly Even Evil

Are the Global Warmistas Simply Juicing Up the Latest Years' Temperatures With "Adjustments" While Reducing the Temperatures of Previous Years, To Always Make the Current Year "The Hottest"?

Sure seems that way -- and people have noticed this tendency in their ever-changing adjustments to the temperature record.

But now they may have gone too far -- in order to declare 2015 the "hottest on record," they apparently had to revise and "adjust" the previously declared all-time "hottest on record," 1997.

Because 1997 was more than three and half degrees warmer than 2015 -- going by NOAA's published data.

If they've now adjusted 1997's temperature down by three and a half degrees or more -- thus making the former All Time Hottest Year On Record not particularly hot -- this should be the lead, no?

And this would then reveal a lot of about their practices, where the "adjustments" made to the numbers change so much depending on current political messaging needs, and where all the warming comes from the "adjustments," and not the actual temperature records themselves.

It's simply job protection. Follow the money, like in any enterprise. It has never been science in the Empirical sense: there is no check and balance in the form of additional experiments to independently confirm the data. Data is pretty much dictated by entities outside of any critic's control, and data manipulation - career death to real scientists - cannot be questioned.

More Bogus Data Manipulation

Are political polls "science"? They produce data that is supposedly based statistically on observation. Or not. Maybe the pollsters are colluding in manipulating data in order to "herd" voters in the pollster's preferred direction.

The election polls weren't wrong because of mistakes – pollsters deliberately cheated

Professor Sturgiss also points out how this “statistical consensus” was arrived at. “The primary cause of the failure of the 2015 pre-election opinion polls was unrepresentativeness in the composition of the poll samples. The methods of sample recruitment used by the polling organisations resulted in systematic over-representation of Labour voters and under-representation of Conservative voters”. In other words, the pollsters inserted too many Labour voters into their polls, and not enough Conservatives.

Bogus Science: When You Can't Find Any Evidence, You Can Always Just Make It Up

Several papers have been retracted; Data "manipulation" has been found. This is why it is not science until it has been successfully replicated at least once by disinterested, competent alternative labs. Especially when it is a political or Social Justice issue.

Italian papers on genetically modified crops under investigation

Papers that describe harmful effects to animals fed genetically modified (GM) crops are under scrutiny for alleged data manipulation. The leaked findings of an ongoing investigation at the University of Naples in Italy suggest that images in the papers may have been intentionally altered. The leader of the lab that carried out the work there says that there is no substance to this claim.

The papers’ findings run counter to those of numerous safety tests carried out by food and drug agencies around the world, which indicate that there are no dangers associated with eating GM food. But the work has been widely cited on anti-GM websites — and results of the experiments that the papers describe were referenced in an Italian Senate hearing last July on whether the country should allow cultivation of safety-approved GM crops.

“The case is very important also because these papers have been used politically in the debate on GM crops,” says Italian senator Elena Cattaneo, a neuroscientist at the University of Milan whose concerns about the work triggered the investigation.

Following the Senate hearing, Cattaneo took a closer look at three papers1–3, which all emerged from a research lab at the University of Naples, headed by veterinary scientist Federico Infascelli. They describe experiments on goat kids born to mothers fed on GM soya-bean meal and conclude that fragments of the foreign gene in the soya bean can be transported across the gut and secreted in the milk, influencing the biology of the suckling kids.
Gel manipulation

Cattaneo noted what looked like problems in all three papers: sections of images of electrophoresis gels appeared to have been obliterated, and some of the images in different papers appeared to be identical but with captions describing different experiments.

She then commissioned Enrico Bucci, head of the biomedical services and information consultancy firm BioDigitalValley in Aosta, Italy, to carry out a forensic analysis of all three papers. The analysis suggested that the papers did indeed contain manipulated and reused images. Cattaneo contacted the journals concerned in September last year, and in November forwarded the analysis to the University of Naples. The university rector, Gaetano Manfredi, an engineer, immediately launched the university investigation, which is nearly complete. He says that the university will probably announce any resulting actions by the end of February.

Ahead of this, however, details of the confidential findings of the investigation committee — composed of scientists in and outside of Naples — were leaked to the Italian press. Tommaso Russo, a molecular biologist at the University of Naples who is responsible for coordinating the investigation, told Nature that the committee has found that the papers contain intentional data manipulation.

Shutting Down the Part of the Frontal Cortex That Prevents Irrationality

Scientists claim they can change your belief on immigrants and God – with MAGNETS

"A bizarre experiment claims to be able to make Christians no longer believe in God and make Britons open their arms to migrants in experiments some may find a threat to their values.

Scientists looked at how the brain resolves abstract ideological problems.

Using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), researchers safely shut down certain groups of neurones in the brains of volunteers.

TMS, which is used to treat depression, involves placing a large electromagnetic coil against the scalp which creates electric currents that stimulate nerve cells in the region of the brain involved in mood control.

Researchers found the technique radically altered religious perceptions and prejudice.

Belief in God was reduced almost by a third, while participants became 28.5 per cent less bothered by immigration numbers."

My nomination for Best comment:

"EdCorps
So this study proves that by blocking a persons ability to think critically and reason, they stop believing in God and accept things that are obviously going to harm them. Brilliant. Think about it for a minute, its a liberal making machine, and to make it work, you have to shut down a part of the brain!"

What sort of person would allow his brain to be assaulted in this manner? I'm thinking proto-Atheist.

Fight Racism Scientifically: Be An SJW Racist Yourself

Study Claims Only Way To Be Less Racist Is To Accuse Others Of Racism

"A study out of Denver’s Diversity Symposium has found the only way for people to extinguish racism in their own souls is to become experts at identifying racism in others.

Dr. Wilder, a researcher of racial and cultural statistics gave an interview recently where he informed reporters of his findings.

“Everyone has some form of prejudice. That is simply human nature. But I’m confident in saying that my dedicated group of researchers have found a way in which we can all vanquish those racist impulses that each of us are infected with.

Dr. Wilder went onto say, “The primary way to purge yourself of your own racist inclinations is by diagnosing racist features in others. We’ve found that with each accusation, the brain releases dopamine which diminishes any racist thoughts the accuser may have.”

Well that doesn't seem to work for Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, Chawn Kweli and Obama. Maybe they need massive injections of dopamine? What other social ills does dopamine cure? Should we put it in the water?

This deserves a new category: stupid science.

More Bad Science "Fact" Bites The Dirt

If you can call economics a science. But it is used for political policy.

From the Kaus Files:

Mariel, Farewell?

"The law of supply and demand suggests that an increase in immigrant labor will lower wages. That’s what opponents of increased immigration (including opponents of Rubio-style “comprehensive” reform) say. For decades, the major bit of discordant data has been Prof. David Card’s study of the Mariel boatlift — a “natural experiment” in which 125,000 Cubans landed in Miami in 1980. Did they suppress local wages? Card found that they didn’t — a counterintuitive finding often cited in surveys of the academic debate on immigration, such as this New York Times Magazine article

Card documented that blacks, and also other workers, in Miami actually did better than in the control cities. …

Not so fast! Prof. George Borjas, whose work tends to uphold the conventional supply-demand view, has just gone back and reexamined the Mariel data, looking specificially at what happened to less-skilled workers (high school dropouts). It turns out they took a beating!

The absolute wage of high school dropouts in Miami dropped dramatically, as did the wage of high school dropouts relative to that of either high school graduates or college graduates. The drop in the relative wage of the least educated Miamians was substantial (10 to 30 percent). … [E.A.]

Card may have missed this because he lumped high school dropouts in with high school graduates, whose wage was unaffected. (At least 60% of the Marielitos were in the lowest skilled, high-school dropout group.)

Borjas also compares Miami’s experience with cities that had similar growth patterns before the Mariel labor “supply shock” (as opposed to Card’s “control” cities, which were chosen partly because they had similar growth patterns after the shock). Borjas finds “the relative decline in the wage of low-educated workers in Miami is much larger when we compare Miami to cities that had comparable employment growth.” It makes sense that if wages in Miami went down, but you compare Miami only with cities where wages also went down, you’ might miss some of the relative Miami decline.

In both academic and political terms, this is a BFD. It looks like the law of supply and demand works. More immigrant workers translates into lower wages. The most conspicuous, unassailable finding to the contrary has apparently just been demolished. A major prop in the arguments for greater low-skilled immigration (including arguments for amnesty) –‘What about Mariel?’ — would seem to have disappeared, though the other side has yet to be heard from. (And they will be heard from.) Borjas’ study only just went public."

Card compared apples to oranges and got wrong answers. That is the problem in using science - unreplicated and untested for falsification - as political policy. The law of Supply and Demand goes directly and diametrically opposite to Marxist, top down control of everything. The Left will wail and flail at this falsification of "the failure of Supply and Demand economics" in massive immigration influx conditions.

Actual fact: it did and it will affect black Americans and poor people.

Does the Left really care about blacks and the poor? We'll see.

Totalitarian Science: The Victimhood of the Government Charlatans

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

"The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.
Special: New Probiotic Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm

“The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrote."

These people are scared. They need protection. Their "science", which is nothing more than computer output, is failing them. So they really, really, need legal protection for their exponential projections of death and destruction.

And it is within the realm of possibility these days, that under "thought crime" law, free discussion of their "science" might be deemed as "hate speech", maybe under another frivolous executive order. The totalitarians of government-funded science are appealing to the Totalitarian In Chief. If this can be spun as a "class" issue, with the Victimhood of the poor-but-funded scientists AND the fate of the entire world, then the Messiah must be inclined to save them from their oppressors.

Free speech is of value only when exercised by Messiahs; otherwise it is evil. Even in a universe which is morally cold and contains no evil.

And this might be the reason: What they want protected is their new program of outright FRAUD:

NOAA Massively Ramps Up Their Temperature Fraud Ahead Of Paris

Please go to the SITE and immerse yourself in the graphs of the new fabrications vs. the old data.

Ever since Darwin, much science has been the art of finding or creating data to fit the desired conclusion. This is especially true in those endeavors where the validity of the data cannot be checked by outsiders. When government-funded insiders control the data, they can protect their incomes with a mere "re-evaluation"... and perhaps the government silencing of opposition.