Are
the mighty men and women of science really all that much different
from any astute politician?
November
30, 2009
Caption
Climategate U-turn 'On thin Ice – The hockey stick graph
fraud', The Daily Mail UK, Feb 14, 2010
Dear
'co-conspiracy theorist' M – Hi.
What
Dr. Tim Ball stated in his concluding remarks in the following
climategate video also captures my sentiments:
“...
but you know what, finding out that what I was saying was true there
is no pleasure in that whatsoever. No pleasure in 'I told you so'
because this is a deeply troubling time not only for climate-science,
but Science in general.” -- Minute 9:30, Climategate:
Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails, November 21, 2009 on
corbettreport http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
And as sweeping
as that “deeply troubling time” statement
is, I would say Dr. Tim Ball still didn't go far enough. He did not
unravel the overarching agenda and the galactic extent it permeates
its corrupting tentacles as noted in this Letter
to Editor: Understanding the Political Science behind Global Warming
February 07, 2009,
and in this Response
to Financial Times Gideon Rachman's 'And now for a world government'
December 11, 2008.
And
neither did Senator Inhofe examine the 'WHY' of “cooking
that science” in this exchange on Fox News back in June
2009:
Fox
News Anchor: “Does it appear to you that the EPA buried
evidence that would have made the President's climate change bill
unnecessary”?
Sen.
Inhofe: “Oh absolutely Greg. They have been cooking that
science since 1998. ...”
Fox
News Anchor: “And here is what Alan Carlin said [Author
of EPA 98-page study on climate change]: 'My view is...there
is not currently any reason to regulate carbon dioxide. Global
temperatures are roughly where they were in mid-20th century. They're
not going up. If anything, they're going down.' In other
words, if there is no endangerment, there is no need for a Bill.”
Sen. Inhofe:
“The thing is phony. I feel so good about being redeemed
after all these years... all of those scientists that Al Gore had
lined up... all of them used to be on his side, they all said wait a
minute, this science isn't right, and that's exactly what Alan Carlin
said...” -- Minute 0:30, Sen. Inhofe On Global Warming:
'This
Thing Is Phony', Fox News, June 29,
2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skf8bpl8WSg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skf8bpl8WSg
The
following is an interesting map of global temperatures – I am
not sure of the source or accuracy of the specifics of the data from
which it is constructed, but the planetary level temperature cycles
are quite empirical:
Caption
Global Temperature Chart 2500 BC to 2040 AD By Cliff Harris and Randy
Mann (Image source longrangeweather.com)
Whereas,
not unlike the many previous diabolical mantras deployed by the
ruling establishment as pretexts for different facets of its
“imperial mobilization” agenda, the
following is the famous “hockey-stick” science graph used
for promoting the mantra of Global Warming:
Caption
The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science by John L. Daly
(graph courtesy wattsupwiththat.com)
Canadian
Professors Ross McKitrick and Christopher Essex deconstructed that
hockey-stick science along with their notable non-conformist
collaborator and businessman from Toronto, Steve McIntyre, in their
2003 book Taken by Storm, long before climategate. But Prof.
Ross too, circumspectly, only called it “bad science”,
judiciously refraining from calling it Science in the
Service of Empire which it is:
'Michael
Coren: “What's all this about a hockey-stick?”
Ross
McKitrick: “Well, the hockey-stick graph. This was back in
2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], it's a UN
body that every five years puts out a big assessment of the science.
And they are especially alert to any evidence that really promotes
the Global Warming story and they give it lots of promotion. And in
2001, they latched onto this result that was fairly fresh in the
literature, that had to with what's called paleoclimatology. The
study of the behavior of the climate from way back before we had
thermometers.
Now,
for decades the standard view has been that over the past thousand
years, there is a Medieval era, which is very warm compared to the
present. You know, the Greenland, the Vikings were able to have farms
in Greenland. All over the world there is evidence that it was
warmer, and basically better for people. And then things got cold for
about 500 years, up to the 1800s, and then we were in a warming phase
coming out of the little ice-age as it was called.
In
the 2001 IPCC report, they changed all that and presented a graph
that looks like a hockey stick lying on its side. So the mean state
of the climate is almost constant, up until the year 1900, and then
suddenly the temperatures started rising rapidly.
And
this was very dramatic. It was an extremely effective graphics for
getting people worried about global warming.
And
it featured prominently in the debates over Kyoto, the government of
Canada had it on its website. Actually the government of Canada
quoted from it in a pamphlet they sent out to households across the
country, and governments around the world did the same thing. Al Gore
features it in his movie.” -- Minutes 0:23 to 2:20
Michael
Coren: “... Hold on, you are being very generous here.
The hockey stick was used time and time again, and in fact, it became
almost iconic within the Global Warming movement. As you say, movies,
and pamphlets sent out to people across Canada. And you are not
saying to me, it was never genuine, either because there was weak
research, or even dishonest research, this is kafkaesque.”
Ross
McKitrick: “Well, what we found along the way was there was
statistical errors, but one of the big problems was they'd used a
contaminated dataset. They had about 400 input data series of these
temperature proxies, but they way they were analyzing them was most
of the data was thrown out, and there is one little segment of the
dataset that all the results depended on, and they are called bristle
cone pine series. It's a funny looking tree that grows mostly in
Western United States and they grown very old. Thousand years old.
But,
people have long known, and the National Academy of Science has
repeated this warning: you shouldn't use them for temperature
reconstructions, because they have this hockey-stick shape that's got
nothing to do with temperature.
Well,
it turned out that the hockey-stick graph was formed by taking these
bristle cone pines and just putting all the weight on them.
And
the original author had redone his analysis taking this small number
of bristle cone pines out, and the whole shape changes. The graph
just loses its shape, it just becomes sort of noisy and nothing. So,
they knew when they published this study.”
Michael
Coren: “They lied!”
Ross McKitrick:
“I wouldn't say they lied. I think what they did was they
didn't disclose the fundamental weakness of the original result.”
' -- Minute 4:42 to 6:20, conversation with Professor Ross
McKitrick, The hockey stick is wrong and result of bad science, on
Michael Coren Show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1k4mFZr-gE
As
the above narratives brazenly disclose, one can't expect any
effective policing of empire by those fed from the crumbs of empire,
never mind unravel the hidden agendas! Just look at even Professor
Ross McKitrick's apologetics on behalf of his fellow-scientist whose
fraud he himself exposed, as being mere errors of omissions and not
outright lying despite the acute probing by the interviewer. That
modus operandi of crafty omissions and half-truths, as is examined
later in this letter, is a full lie and the vulgar propagandists' key
mechanism for manufacturing mantras, dissent, and consent for empire.
In any event, as
the political science thesis contained in my aforementioned Letter to
Editor argues, there is indeed a prime reason for “cooking
that science” of climate-change. It is, quite
un-surprisingly, along the same global axis as the prime reason for
“cooking the science” of Swine Flu as
already unraveled in The
Swine Flu Chronicles 2009: Why to say ‘No’ to the Swine
Flu Vaccine.
See its Preamble
for a succinct examination of the principle modus operandi in the
globalists' own handwritings. In this case, it is to fabricate
plausible sounding justifications for legally ushering in the
architecture of 'carbon credit', regardless of whether there is
global warming, global cooling, or no significant temperature change.
That is the real heart of the matter and the focus of heated debates
for the past ten years being whether or not there is global climate
change, as now in the climategate that there isn't, is a gigantic red
herring.
The
point of focus shouldn't be the unraveling of the deception, but the
unraveling of the crucial agendas behind the deception for which
mantras are so painstakingly fabricated and consent manufactured.
As
both, Zen wisdom and forensic science dictate, these revelations are
“like a finger pointing away to the moon – don't
concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory"!
That Letter to
Editor noted above examined the 'why' question, quoting from an
earlier analysis of Global
Warming:
'And
as is entirely obvious from Mr. Gideon Rachman's article why this is
politically motivated, the reasons become clear why this confusion is
deliberately being created. If you accept the Capitalist conspiracy
for world government, as I have described it, and if you accept the
NSSM-200 agenda for population reduction as I have also described it,
tying in the hand of Rockefeller to the UN and their agenda for
population reduction (citations for these statements are in my
various essays), then you must realize why the ruling elite wants to
control 'life activity', and carbon-credit is their architecture of
control!
It is somewhat
akin to acquiring control of a nation's money supply in the guise of
managing the economy better. Few in the public understand why such a
control is bad anyway, but those who do try to understand it are
thrown layers upon layers of obfuscation. Something similar is
happening here. Think of acquiring control of 'carbon-credits' almost
equivalent to acquiring control of a nation's money supply! This will
control every aspect of sustaining life, just as control of money
determines every aspect of sustaining the economy. You name it,
between the two of them, it will control it in a world-government.
And the first recipient of these controls, the carbon-credit
specifically, is the developing world, the Global South, because that
is where development must be arrested, and populations thinned out!
Just as control of money was first exercised where there was a
superfluity of industry and commerce, control of 'carbon-credit' is
intended to be exercised where there is a superfluity of populations
aspiring to grow their nascent economies!' -- NB:
On Global Warming December 12, 2008
And it is
instructive to juxtapose all of that perspective with the motivation
for population control expressed by David Rockefeller at the UN
Ambassadors dinner, as transcribed in Project Humanbeingsfirst's
Monetary
Reform Bibliography:
“Ironically
however, the very innovations that are making possible dramatic
improvements in human well-being are also creating new problems which
raise the spectre of an alarming and possibly catastrophic disaster
to the biosphere we live in. And herein lies the dilemma that we all
face. Let me illustrate. Improved public health, has caused the
world's infant mortality rate to decline by 60 percent over the last
40 years. In the same period, the world's average life expectancy has
increased from 46 years in 1950s to 63 years today. This is a
development which as individuals we can only applaud. However the
result of these positive measures is that the world population that
has risen during the same short period of time geometrically to
almost 6 billion people, and can exceed easily 8 billion by the year
2020.
The
negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary
eco-systems is becoming appallingly evident. The rapid growing
exploitation of the world's supply of energy and water is a matter of
deep concern. And the toxic by products of widespread
industrialization and increased atmospheric pollution to dangerous
levels. Unless nations will agree to work together to tackle these
cross-border challenges posed by population growth over consumption
of resources and environmental degradation, prospects for a decent
life on our planet will be threatened. The recent UN meeting in Cairo
is appropriately focussed on one of these key issues, population
growth.
But
the controversies which have erupted at the conference illustrate the
problem of coming to grips with issues that are deeply divisive and
which have a profound moral dimension. The United Nations can and
should play an essential role in helping the world find a
satisfactory way of stabilizing the world population and stimulating
economic development in a manner that is sensitive to religious and
moral considerations.
Economic
growth is of course an inevitable corollary of a growing population,
and is essential to improved standards of living. But without careful
coordination, unrestrained economic growth poses further threats to
our environment.
This was a major
subject of discussion at the conference in Rio de Janeiro on the
environment two years ago. The focus then was on sustainable growth,
and global development. It was pointed out at the conference that
growth is most efficiently managed by the private sector, but
regulation of the process by national governments and international
bodies is also needed. And once again, United Nations can certainly
be among the catalysts and coordinators of this process.” --
David Rockefeller, United Nations Ambassador's Dinner, hosted by the
Business Council for the United Nations,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8
So
many learned people betray shock and surprise by climategate that
they betray their own pathetic ignorance of the doctrinal
craftsmanship of empire. Yes, and among them are the most brilliant
scientists on the planet – a phenomenon I call the “ignorance
of the learned”. Some are pleased or have the 'told you so'
reaction, and some just pooh-pooh it as insignificant, but few betray
any deep forensic comprehension of the full import of the
Machiavellian agenda behind the mantra now becoming unraveled. I
haven't bothered studying these leaked materials since the
confirmation they proclaim is a waste of my time. As the good Dr.
Tim Ball candidly stated, it also gives me absolutely no pleasure to
receive confirmation that I see the tortuous reality for what it is.
I'll examine their details when it becomes pertinent to some analysis
I am doing. These climategate leaks contain no profound knowledge
which can benefit me – and that's because Hari Seldon's
statecraft of 'psychohistory', I mean Machiavellian political
science, predicts the hijacking of hard-science as well as
social-science accurately. It is manifest across the board.
And
Dr. Tim Ball acutely put his finger on the precise modus operandi
used in imperial science today as its key loci of control for
conferring credibility and respectability to priesthood for inclusion
into empire's officially approved churches: the peer-review
process. I call it “incestuous science”! The
peer-review process cannot approve or adjudicate, by definition,
anything outside of the conventional wisdom endorsed by the peers of
empire if the science ever goes against the principal interests of
empire. So, while it can work well for science which does not
challenge empire's interests or entrenched prevailing wisdom,
peer-review has undeniably become a bloody scam to promote
establishment's own agendas, to issue grants, to authenticate
pseudo-scientific plausible-sounding justifications for
pre-determined outcomes, and to see who falls in line for further
reward and who qualifies for ostracization.
This
should be self-evident irrespective of the climategate brouhaha. Page
101 of John Perkins 2004 book “Confessions of the Economic
Hitman” for instance, also reveals an example of the
perverse respectability gained from peer-review publishing of
entirely bogus mathematical econometric-theory in furtherance of the
hegemonic agenda for diabolically acquiring control over developing
nations and their natural resources. This is what John Perkins
confesses in the opening pages of Chapter 17, titled Panama Canal
Negotiations and Graham Greene:
'Bruno
came up with an idea for an innovative approach to forecasting: an
econometric model based on the writings of a turn-of-the-century
Russian mathematician. The model involved assigning subjective
probabilities to predictions that certain specific sectors of an
economy would grow. It seemed an ideal tool to justify the inflated
rates of increase we liked to show in order to obtain large loans,
and Bruno asked me to see what I could so with the concept.
...
By 1977, I had built a small empire that included a staff of around
twenty professionals headquartered in our Boston office, and a stable
consultants from MAIN's other departments and offices scattered
across the globe. I had become the youngest partner in the firm's
hundred-year history. In addition to my title of Chief Economist, I
was named manager of Economics and Regional Planning. I was lecturing
at Harvard and other venues, and newspapers were soliciting articles
from me about current events. I owned a sailing yacht that was docked
in Boston Harbor next to the historic battleship Constitution,
“Old Ironsides”, renowned for subduing the Barbary
pirates not long after the Revolutionary War. I was being paid an
excellent salary and I had equity that promised to elevate me to the
rarified heights of millionaire well before I turned forty. True, my
marriage had fallen apart, but I was spending time with beautiful and
fascinating women in several continents.
...
[With that as background] I brought a young MIT mathematician, Dr.
Nadipuram Prasad, into my department and gave him a budget. Within
six months he developed the Markov method for econometric modeling.
Together we hammered out a series of technical papers that presented
Markov as a revolutionary method for forecasting the impact of
infrastructure investment on economic development.
It
was exactly what we wanted: a tool that scientifically “proved”
we were doing countries a favor by helping them incur debts they
would never be able to pay off. In addition, only a highly skilled
econometrician with lots of time and money could possibly comprehend
the intricacies of Markov or question its conclusions. The papers
were published by several prestigious organizations, and we formally
presented them at conferences and universities in a number of
countries. The papers – and we – became famous throughout
the industry.'
And
specifically, returning to climategate, in the case of the first
author of climategate sciences in the service of empire, John L. Daly
wrote the following of Michael Mann in The
`Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science:
'Michael
Mann
At
the time he published his `Hockey Stick' paper, Michael Mann held an
adjunct faculty position at the University of Massachusetts, in the
Department of Geosciences. He received his PhD in 1998, and a year
later was promoted to Assistant Professor at the University of
Virginia, in the Department of Environmental Sciences, at the age of
34.
He
is now the Lead Author of the `Observed Climate Variability and
Change' chapter of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000), and a
contributing author on several other chapters of that report. The
Technical Summary of the report, echoing Mann's paper, said: "The
1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium,
and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year."
Mann
is also now on the editorial board of the `Journal of Climate' and
was a guest editor for a special issue of `Climatic Change'. He is
also a `referee' for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change,
Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JGR-Oceans,
JGR-Atmospheres, Paleo oceanography, Eos, International Journal of
Climatology, and NSF, NOAA, and DOE grant programs. (In the `peer
review' system of science, the role of anonymous referee confers the
power to reject papers that are deemed, in the opinion of the
referee, not to meet scientific standards).
He
was appointed as a `Scientific Adviser' to the U.S. Government (White
House OSTP) on climate change issues.
Mann
lists his `popular media exposure' as including - "CBS, NBC,
ABC, CNN, CNN headline news, BBC, NPR, PBS (NOVA/FRONTLINE), WCBS,
Time, Newsweek, Life, US News & World Report, Economist,
Scientific American, Science News, Science, Rolling Stone, Popular
Science, USA Today, New York Times, New York Times (Science Times),
Washington Post, Boston Globe, London Times, Irish Times, AP, UPI,
Reuters, and numerous other television/print media" [17].
Mann's
career highlights a serious problem with the modern climate sciences,
namely the `star' system where high-profile scientists are promoted
swiftly to influential positions in the industry. Such a star system
reduces a science to the level of Hollywood.'
Unfortunately,
the last passage in the aforementioned complete quote is where John
L. Daly too failed to appreciate the import of Science in the Service
of Empire, narrowly pinning the problem as only plaguing “modern
climate sciences”.
It
should be evident to all men and women of science that neither Darwin
nor Galileo would ever have passed peer-review. The fact that genuine
scientists seeking the peer review process don't seem to care about
this blatant obviousness which is even rooted in historical
precedence, suggests that they wisely choose to remain within the
allowable confines of acceptable research, i.e., funded research,
even when they have no diabolical or mal intent of their own. The
control in science is exercised in a manner not too dissimilar to
permitting vigorous and contrarian social debate within an allowable
spectrum to give the illusion of free speech and freedom of thought!
Those falling outside the allowable limits are of course variously
labeled and marginalized.
Thus,
while no one may challenge the sacred-cow HolocaustTM
narrative in the EU or Canada without going to jail as everyone
already knows, debating and developing competing theories on
Islamofascism and maligning Islam and its Prophets is greatly
encouraged as the epitome of freedom of speech and profound
intellectualism. But challenging the very premise of Osama Bin
Laden or 'Radical Islam' is frowned upon, and will likely soon be
labeled 'terrorism' if it isn't already. Rendition can't be that
far behind. Nevertheless, it is still easier to survive being
marginalized in the social discourse arena. But quite impossible to
do so in science which has become a big budget operation requiring
institutional support and endorsement.
That abuse of
science, the “incestuous science”, in the present
vaccination drive for the swine flu forms the underpinning of this
Note
on Vaccination
which expresses a unique concern that is still largely outside the
many paradigms of concern expressed by many of the nay-sayers in
their own formulations of why they are against the swine flu vaccine,
or against vaccination in general:
'My immediate
concern is the latter which includes an entire gamut of political
abuse, from eugenics to GMO foods to epidemics – which harvests
justifications and techniques from science and technology – all
for population culling and elimination. It's akin to abusing Islam to
create the fabled enemy of 'Islamism' for a war-making agenda –
whether or not there is some inherent deficiency in the religion is
irrelevant and orthogonal to its political abuse for “imperial
mobilization”.' -- The
Swine Flu Chronicles 2009: Why to say ‘No’ to the Swine
Flu Vaccine
The
aforementioned concern is even more eloquently voiced by the polymath
Spanish Benedictine nun at San Benet of Montserrat's Monastery in
Barcelona, Dr. Teresa Forcades, with the peerless credentials:
Physician specialist in Internal Medicine, Ph.D. in Public Health,
and Degree in Theology from Harvard University.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVSL_vV_Bo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVSL_vV_Bo
And
that full spectrum abuse of science, the “incestuous
science” in the service of empire, is the crucial heart of
the matter today.
The fact that we
see it occurring repeatedly across the board – from the
government sanctioned official but absurd NIST report on how the WTC
towers catastrophically collapsed into their own footprints on 911,
to the fraudulent climate-change science of Global Warming, to the
brazenly criminal medical science of swine flu pandemic promulgated
by government sanctioned official bodies like WHO and CDC –
minimally shows how science is being perversely used in the service
of empire. What a tortuous implementation of Sir Francis Bacon's
drive to inter-link the pursuit of the nascently emerging Western
science in the 17th century with imperial funding from the superpower
du jour, in order to more effectively deploy the harvest of science
in the service of humanity (and
of course empire):
“human knowledge and human power meet in one”!
(Francis Bacon, quoted in John Gascoigne, Science in
the Service of Empire: Joseph Banks, the British State and the Uses
of Science in the Age of Revolution, Cambridge, 1998, pg.
16)
It is immensely
interesting to also note in passing that Noam
Chomsky insisted on 911 science be peer-reviewed
before he'd read the papers written by Jones et. al. And when it
finally got published by a maverick online journal (I
sent a thank you note to them),
my dear professor Noam Chomsky – to whom I will forever remain
indebted as the teacher who actually taught me to think critically –
insisted that he will wait for other credible scientists in that
domain to critique it before reading and/or offering his own opinion
as he was not a domain expert in how tall buildings collapse, and
that letting the domain experts sort it out first in peer-reviewed
journals is the acceptable process of science!
What
a new born baby octogenarian – or perhaps Noam Chomsky had
understood rather well that going against the grain on 911 would be
severely career limiting for any technical domain expert, and thus it
was, and perhaps still is, safe to argue in this way? A specious red
herring? Or merely intellectual convolutions to continue echoing
empire's sacred-cow axioms of “imperial mobilization”
while appearing to challenge its deadly expression?
Does it take a
domain expert, or some ordinary
un co-opted commonsense observation
to realize that this
free-fall symmetrical collapse into its own footprint suspiciously
looks like controlled demolition, and that this
and this
catastrophic instantaneous powdering of tall buildings into fine dust
are hardly the gravity collapse of a standing steel structure due to
fire; never mind the fact that no response from empire's imposing air
defense systems on that ill-fated day when the hijacking drama was
unfolding in the public eye, at least smacks of active collusion at
the highest levels of the US military high-command; and therefore,
minimally, to pin 911 on Osama Bin Laden based on some newly
discovered faith in officialdom after a life of dissent is profoundly
intellectual?
All
are empire's own multifaceted instruments of public relations, as
well as its “approved science”, and its “approved
dissent”. The political abuse of science to serve hegemonic
agendas is a monumental scam, and Dr. Ball's following terse
expression is very perceptive:
“... [in
the debate about the hockey-stick] these people are all publishing
together, and they all peer-reviewing each other's literature. So
there is a classic example of [incestuous self-reinforcement] ... why
are they pushing the peer-review issue so big, why are they saying
well, you haven't published peer-review ... and now of course we
realize is because they have control over their own process.
That's clearly exposed in these emails. On a global scale it is
frightening.... they control the IPCC. They manipulated that ... The
IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto Protocol,
the Coopenhagen Accord, and so on!” Minute 1:20, Tim Ball, Op.
cit.
Anecdotally,
I will recall for you some interesting personal experiences of the
abuse of peer review by individuals. In the late 1980s when I worked
as a development engineer in a computer company, my new office-mate,
a recent Ph.D. from a very reputed top school in the United States
and only 25 years of age (he celebrated his 25th birthday after his
first day at work), had published almost 20 or so papers on the
operating system he had worked on for his Ph.D. thesis. In any case
it was a large number of papers, I may be forgetting the precise
number. So, one day, having nothing better to do, I read all his
published papers that were listed on his imposing resume –
there was no web at the time, and only hardcopy of these papers
existed which he fortunately had in the office. I also read his Ph.D.
thesis. And I was very puzzled. 90% of the content in the refereed
and conference papers was identical. To my mind, the differences
didn't warrant new papers, only perhaps separate sections, and at
most 2 or 3 papers. So I asked him about it. He candidly told me that
this is how the game is played, and that those who didn't play it,
paid the price. This scholarship inflation is indeed rewarded with
academic respectability, not just in academe, but in corporate
research as well. A few years later, another graduate student in
computer science developed a fancy piece of software to automatically
synthesize an entirely gibberish but plausible sounding paper in
context by scanning words and sentences in already published papers,
and submitted his genius to one or more peer-reviewed journals.
My
god – one of them actually published it. I do not recall the
full details now, except that the gallant chap also sent in a note
informing them how the paper was created. And as I vaguely remember,
there was both amusement, and minor discussion on the poor
peer-review process by over-worked professors, but no major scandal.
Obviously! And lastly, a few years ago when I briefly consulted for a
big-shot scientist in Pakistan, when he introduced himself to me by
saying he had 600 publications to his credit, I recalled for him that
possibly the mightiest physicist of the 20th century after Einstein,
the Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman of Caltech, had only 37 or so
published papers, and that how did he get so many. I can't even
remember this inflated egoist's answer today!
All
this isn't “incestuous science” per se and is
perhaps more akin to tolerable noise in any system. But it does show
that the glorified peer review is far from being the pristine
scientific process that it is made out to be, and that people will be
people, and when quantity of publications is incentivized, they will
routinely find clever ways to harness the process for their own
narrow interests which may have nothing to do with the science per se
in no less measure than the ruling establishment.
The
same arguments are easily extended to the examination and granting of
patents, fancifully called the intellectual property rights. All of
my patent filings for instance were primarily a business decision
made by the corporation to create a patent portfolio as a currency of
barter in patent infringement lawsuits. I doubt very much that the
patent examiners anywhere have the wherewithal to know what is prior
art and what isn't, as all engineering and technology fields have
exponentially grown since the concept of patenting was invented as a
business tool to allow entrepreneurs to capitalize on their product
inventions for a limited time. That has today transformed into the
abhorrent WTO extortion racket to mainly prey upon the developing
nations!
Dear
M, returning to the Machiavellian political science which lends so
much insight into almost everything man endeavors, it is almost as if
my favorite science fiction novelist, the galaxologist Isaac Asimov,
was vicariously projecting Hari Seldon's psycho-historical
calculations for guiding the course of “future-history”
of his fictional empire on the vast intergalactic canvas, as a
profound clue to mankind to get them to forensically comprehend
manufactured reality. Just like Plato had done in his Myth of the
Cave, 2500 years earlier.
People
in the West tend to go all gaga when an obvious conspiracy is finally
revealed to be true, as in this case of climategate. But worse, many
of them tend to focus on its how-whiz minutiae when the iron is hot
instead of doing something useful with it, and then simply move-on
deeming the scandal to be a one-of case of some misguided policy gone
awry or case of individual corruption. And at best, a nefarious but
myopic agenda which is not related to any other agenda of the
establishment. This armchair anguish also remained the case with the
revealing of the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s which momentarily
riveted the attention of the American public. No one at the time
questioned why was America criminally assisting the two neighborly
countries of Iran and Iraq to fight each other to death; only that it
did this in some non-kosher way. The exact same thing is once again
transpiring in climategate. Few are focussing on connecting the dots
towards a bigger picture – deliberately missing the Zen of
political science.
This
circumscribing of the imagination in the erudite Western intellect is
almost as if the Western mind has been calculatingly indoctrinated
into the notion that the pursuit of sciences is a pristine, highly
objective endeavor of incredibly moral supermen devoid of any
political agendas in promulgating the objectives of empire that funds
it. It is akin to the Eastern mind long having become attuned to the
notion of predestination because of which it silently continues to
suffer its fate at the hands of its own oligarchy. Each half of the
world, apparently, are wont to sacrifice different half of their
brain at the altar of their respective feudal priestdoms.
The
military-industrial complex of America for instance is entirely
scientist driven at its technological forefronts. This is plainly
visible and openly conducted, and therefore, not one sane person in
the world would deny that such science and technology pursuits
entirely serve the interests of Western hegemony.
But
when caught in a lie for executing far more diabolical objectives of
the hectoring hegemons in circuitous ways – because these may
not be articulated or pursued so openly even when it is not a
state-secret and the information is available to anyone – the
Western intellect suddenly fails! How could these scientists possibly
have been working for the establishment's own Machiavellian agendas –
it must surely be that they were merely personally corrupted at best,
or just did “poor science” in an incestuous cabal. The
“lone-gunman” theory of sciencegate!
In making better
guns and bigger bombs, bioweapons and econometrics, and other
assorted technetronic-gadgets for empire that enables backing its
MacDonald
franchises with McDonnell Douglas,
since all of it is an open enterprise, no one doubts that scientists
and technicians work for empire and are generously rewarded for it.
In fact, it is even bandied about with great eloquence:
“The
hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist --
McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of
the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon
Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force,
Navy and Marine Corps.” -- Thomas L. Friedman, A Manifesto
for the Fast World, NYT March 28, 1999
But
to make the multi-pronged complex architecture of diabolical control
of humanity possible, well, that just can't be. That is just
conspiracy theory! So let's just narrowly concentrate only on the
facts that have been disclosed ... like why the sum of squares goes
negative in the source code of climategate!
As is amply
evident over the past few weeks since the climategate scandal broke,
almost all people of scientific acumen continue to focus on the
fascinating mechanics of how Mann et. al., said their “gun”
worked, but it actually didn't! So bad-bad-scientists. Let's just
clean up the climate sciences of its rotten eggs and move-on. This
attitude is clearly visible in almost all the stellar conversations
on climategate in cyberspace even among the academics. Especially
among the academics! See for instance this open
letter
by Prof. Judith Curry, and her editorial.
This
tunnel vision isn't limited to climategate however, but permeates all
imperial mantras the most prominent and most deadly to date of course
being the “Global War on Terror”. I look forward
to the day when similar email revelations will show how 911 was an
inside job and how any challenge to the official narrative was to be
suppressed, including in science publications and only the Popular
Science version which elaborated on the NIST science was to be
promulgated. At that time, all the uber intelligent beings will once
again similarly become fixated with the minutiae of the obvious. But
yesterday, as today, when boldly asserting so by influential men and
women of science could surely have derailed “imperial
mobilization” to Afghanistan and Iraq thus preventing
all the horrendous crimes against humanity which followed, it
remained a conspiracy theory of the lunatic fringes who saw gods in
the sky.
My all time
favorite physicist of Pakistan, the MIT literate prodigy, Dr. Pervez
Hoodbhoy, the scholar who contributed his own punditry to the mantra
of Islamism in dialectical penmanship to Daniel Pipes' in erudite
prose like “Between
Imperialism and Islamism”
and “The
Threat From Within”,
once wrote me in response to my trying to get him to see that Bin
Laden couldn't have done 911 as WTC collapses looked like controlled
demolition and that he, Hoodbhoy, was failing to connect all the dots
which clearly lead to puppetmasters, saying something to the effect:
~ “remember how our ancestors connected the dots in the
sky and saw all those shapes as their gods...”.
So
henceforth, Pervez Hoodbhoy judiciously avoided connecting the dots
lest he too be misled into seeing things that aren't there, while of
course finding it infinitely pleasurable to continue echoing the
mantras and axioms of empire. Not only MIT trained scientists, but
apparently almost all major scientists and scholars of any IVY and
other lofty pedigree are pregnant with imperial wisdom in that way.
These
brilliant scholars only see puppetshows, and painstakingly describe
them, but never go towards uncovering the forces which drive them.
Since I have already described their salient characteristics in
detail before, let me just reproduce it here as its worthwhile to
relate that to the topic at hand:
- None of them betray that they possess long term memories, or any comprehension of even recent history that can be contextualized to the present.
- None of them seem to have heard of 'covert-ops' and 'black-ops'; none of them have read the shrewd analysis of the imperial thinkers themselves of the necessity of real mobilizing pretexts such as the "New Pearl Harbor" and "clear and present danger" as otherwise "Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization".
- None of them apparently understand that covert-ops while they are operational and active, are meant to be secretive and mendacious, which is why they are called 'covert', and that their unraveling necessitates perceptively seeing beyond what's being deliberately made manifest and what's being insisted upon as 'two plus two equals five' - for hard receipts for them will only be uncovered by historians through the famed declassification process post faits accomplis.
- Thus all of these 'astute' thinkers, commentators, and media pundits none too miraculously reach the same minimal and common conclusion space regardless of their own starting thesis or the circuitous routes taken in their analysis and speculations, that at the bare minimum, the scourge of 'fundamentalism' and 'militant Islam' needs to be checked with renewed commitment in the global 'war on terror', or else no one in the 'civilized world' would remain safe from these antiquated Taliban style 'evil jihadis' and 'al qaeeda'. That root of terror has now been successfully showcased as residing in Pakistan – the 'Terror Central'!
- It is indeed deemed a 'clash of civilizations', not of the East and the West titans, but of 'radical antiquated militant Islam' and the rest of civilized humanity! That "Today [even] if one could wipe America off the map of the world with a wet cloth, mullah-led fanaticism will not disappear", as the distinguished native-informant par excellence, the world class physicist Pervaiz Hoodbhoy, has conclusively observed in his latest analysis of the matter in “Preventing More Lal Masjids”, and which he had earlier explored in great analytical depth in “The Threat From Within”. And none [too] surprisingly, echoing the same mantra of Pakistan becoming a 'terrorist sanctuary' [as] CNN a few days ago [which] aired the documentary by Nick Richardson “Pakistan - The Threat Within”. The unanimity of this conclusion space is scary to say the least – at least for us Pakistanis.
- It would appear that the world's leading thinkers, journalists, newsmedia, scholars and leaders "united we stand" that Pakistan poses a serious threat to world peace! Not the hectoring hegemons who have cleverly utilized 911 "to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers" in what only appears to be another 'operation canned goods' or the 'Reichstag fire' or the much coveted 'New Pearl Harbor' to achieve the 'transformation of [its] forces' to achieve 'full spectrum dominance' over the planet and outerspace, but my wretched lands of the ancient Indus valley, and my wretched peoples – we are the world threat! -- Saving Pakistan from Synthetic 'Terror Central' - Orchestration of 'Lal Masjid' – a precursor to 'shock and awe'? July 13-23, 2007.
In the light of
what is transpiring in Pakistan today, it is not at all prescient
that Pervez Hoodbhoy should have written the following in his ode to
Daniel Pipes: “The
Threat From Within”.
In response to it, I had been compelled to write to
dissent-specialist Hoodbhoy that had there not been an author's name
in that document and someone had asked me to guess who had written
it, I would have easily guessed Daniel Pipes. Take a look at the
following passage for instance:
'Is
Radical Islam Inevitable?
With the large
and growing popular sentiment against Musharraf and his army, one
cannot rule out the possibility that in the years ahead nuclear armed
Pakistan may fall under a neo-Taliban style Salafi-Wahabi-Deobandi
leadership allied with conservative senior military leaders. If it
does, then Pakistan could become the world’s most dangerous
state. But, although possible, it is certainly not inevitable –
countervailing forces work against this nightmare scenario.' --
Pervez Hoodbhoy, Pakistan
– The Threat From Within, Pakistan Security Research Unit
(PSRU), Brief Number 13, 23rd May 2007.
The crafty
Machiavellian omissions present in that saintly expression of fear by
uber physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy: “in the years ahead
nuclear armed Pakistan may fall under a neo-Taliban style
Salafi-Wahabi-Deobandi leadership allied with conservative senior
military leaders. If it does, then Pakistan could become the world’s
most dangerous state”, was once again most recently
dismantled in Response
to 'Wahabization- Salafization of Pakistan and Muslim Ummah :
Fighting the Terrorists But Supporting Their Ideology'.
It is respected
scholars like these – hiding behind academic freedom of speech
and the press – who continually manufacture
disinformation
as agents, assets, and sayanim of the Mighty
Wurlitzer
that has caused me to waste so much of my precious time penning the
million obvious words on my website to refute their half-truths and
Machiavellian spins, for it takes a sentence to construct a lie,
considerably more space and time to refute it. Noam Chomsky had
himself noted this bit of truism, I am sure realizing its full import
for his own writings of crucial omissions. And who has the time to
read the long refutations even if someone bothers to diligently offer
them, even inviting a riposte? Those being refuted simply ignore it.
None may withstand the glare of truth in bright sunlight except those
wearing sunglasses!
Omission, the
cardinal sin of all totalitarian propagandists when they do purvey
half-truths instead of outright full lies – which, as Gary
Null
put it, “there is an old Jewish saying, a half truth is a
full lie” – is even more effective for deception.
Aldous Huxley had insightfully noted its impact in the (circa 1946)
Preface to his 1931 novel Brave New World:
‘The
greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing
something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still
greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By
simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls and “iron curtain” between the masses and
such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as
undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much
more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent
denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.’ --
Aldous Huxley, pg. 11, Brave New World
And
this appears to be how science and scientists are both put to work
for echoing the message of empire. Through calculated omissions and
retaining the sacred-cow axioms, be it pertaining to hard science,
such as in this climatology scam and in the 911 NIST report scam, or
related to social science as in the 911 Commission Report scam in
order to perpetuate the same political theology of empire while
appearing to investigate it.
This
modus operandi is what we had been seeing of the Global Warming
mantra even before the climategate brouhaha erupted. Awarding of the
Nobel Prize to Al Gore only added Public Relations manufacturing to
the game. Now, all new born baby pundits may also verifiably glean
how the establishment was pulling its invisible strings to fabricate
the mantras and the silence about truth. It didn't seem to have
worked to the establishment's complete satisfaction this time around
– but in how many other cases has it worked, and is still
working?
Science
is a blatant instrument of empire when it is necessary for it to be
so, even when the scientists might proclaim themselves innocent like
the new-born baby. Interestingly, or perhaps sadly, many whom I know
personally do tend to behave as if they were indeed born yesterday
when it comes to comprehending dialectical social engineering! They
often proclaim, when their naïveté is challenged, that
political science is not their field – as if it requires a
Ph.D. to know when is one being taken for a ride on the horns of
erudite gibberish!
Are
the mighty men and women of science really all that much different
from any astute politician? While one may pen much prose to show the
reasons for their apparent gullibility, from self-deception to actual
collusion, from having accepted or told one lie to the necessity of
accepting and/or narrating subsequent lies until the soul is in so
deep that it can't extricate itself either mentally or physically,
etceteras, the undeniable fact remains that ultimately, both the
politician and the scientists are fed from the same coffers and
therefore serve the same ruling interests. If they didn't, or if they
made waves, they'd be out. Those who ultimately control the purse
strings control the research as well as the opinions. The paymasters
decide the science that gets funded, and the science which is not
pursued. This is most brazenly obvious in the Big-pharma led medical
science today that is pushing vaccination, vaccines, and other toxic
cocktails to the exclusion of all natural and alternate remedies.
And
who doesn't open their mouth wide for the great benefits – both
tangibles and intangibles – to be accrued from cooperating with
the ruling wisdom, and minimally, for the opportunity to passionately
pursue well-funded science in the mainstream and earn all its rewards
of respectability and a productive career? Who will jeopardize that?
Only
genuine 'conspiracy theorists'!
The entire
barrel of apples is rotten to the core! The intellectual corruption
of modernity has amazingly seeped into all fabrics of society, almost
without exception, from organized religion to organized science and
everything in between. And the primemover source of that corruption
is namely one today! It is the one with the deepest and most
infinitely replenished pockets to spend on all that is vile disguised
as philanthropy, the pursuit of science, the humanities, the arts,
and for the good of high society. Some of it of course is. But the
good is also a veneer to pursue world-domination agendas of those who
rule from behind the scenes. A patient but forensic read of Prof.
Carroll Quigley's seminal history text of empire “Tragedy
and Hope”
makes that abundantly clear. In his commentary on that text, the
following statement of W. Cleon Skoussen sheds the most pertinent
light on the calculated “ignorance of the learned”:
'The
real value of Tragedy and Hope ... [is the] bold and boastful
admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively
small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a
choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of
course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could
wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of
life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle
down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the
scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its
power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together
with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or
corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a
world-wide basis.' -- W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist,
1970, pg. 6
Oligarchs have
of course always existed, and presumably always will. Aldous Huxley
noted in his famous
talk in 1962 at Berkeley
that the rulers getting the serfs to love their own voluntary
servitude would be the “ultimate revolution”
in social control. That notion, of puppetmasters seeking ways and
means to control the populace, is simply empirical.
Indeed,
since time immemorial, the kingmaker has been either a god, or the
oligarchs. And some uber skeptics even argue that our entire
conception of organized religion is an invention too. I don't quite
go that far unless the Anunaki arrive from planet Niburu in my own
lifetime. Then, I might perhaps concede the obviously compelling
argument that all controlling dogmas on planet earth were indeed
fabricated instruments of social cohesion and control throughout our
social evolution, and which, going forward in our continued evolution
according to the prevailing tenets of social Darwinianism, is to be
replaced by Adam Wieshaupt's Secular Humanism. But I doubt I'll ever
stop being a theist even then, for I can't imagine believing
that we are merely an extended amoeba without a soul! Those who don't
need that 'crutch' are certainly mightier than I. They are welcome to
their superman state.
And
to take on these 'ubermensch' in every generation, and to keep them
in check, is the only way to keep the real primemover of evil also in
check. That dialectical Manichean struggle automatically enables, and
is otherwise also culpable, for all the good or evil that follows.
That
is clearly the responsibility of us all. But only the 'idle
conspiracy theorists' seem to recognize it, or want to take it on as
a moral imperative.
So,
I am writing this letter to you, my dear co-conspiracy theorist M,
for pondering the profound question: how can this general polymath
wisdom of Hari Seldon's political-science be shared with others
before it becomes mainstream confirmation; before it becomes fait
accompli?
Ex
post facto, when it is time for it to become history for public
consumption, of course all will see it. Like the old proverb says,
something to the effect, they come running with the news after all
the barbers in town already know! And they laugh their way to their
bank penning their narratives, with lofty prizes and prestigious
titles awarded them by the very instruments of empire they appear to
hector before their flock.
My teacher, Noam
Chomsky,
is perhaps the most egregious example of this. The New York Times
called him “arguably the most important intellectual
alive”. Indeed he is. His imposing books are undeniably
the most exhaustive compilation of the crimes of empire. But in
critically examining his prolific life of dissent without being
snowed in by his voluminous body of work, at least on two of the
gravest moments in any ordinary intellectual's life, never mind the
“most important intellectual alive”, when the most
urgent need of the hour was to publicly show bold skepticism for the
narratives of power, Noam Chomsky persisted in exactly echoing the
core sacred-cow axioms of empire. From the officially promulgated
lone-gunman theory of JFK assassination, to the officially
promulgated 19 hijackers theory of 911, he cleverly echoed the
sacred-cow axioms of empire even in his dissent!
While Noam
Chomsky has eruditely accused empire of manufacturing consent by
deceiving the public, I strongly suspect him of manufacturing
dissent
to effectively assist the empire at the most crucial times in the
same. To me, the New York Times awarding that title to an
intellectual like him is akin to awarding the Nobel
Peace prize
to Jimmy Carter – as both a reward for a job well done for
empire, and to help fabricate a dissent-chief for the malcontents
resisting empire. The epithet proudly adorns Noam Chomsky's many
books and has surely helped him acquire a prestige which even
prompted a notable rebel leader like President Chavez of Venezuela,
to wave one of his books from the United Nations as the epitome of
moral resistance to empire.
So
I ask you in conclusion dear M, is there any intellectual discourse
at all possible to explain all this to others, and have one see not
only its palpable wisdom, but also the categorical imperatives that
automatically spring from it, which, if one voluntarily shirks
responsibility for, one acquires the blood of an accomplice on one's
hands?
Or,
would only the Charles Dickens' character, Madame Defarge, with her
guillotine basket, provide the right motivation to enable one to call
reality the way it is in this age of atheistic relativism when
spiritualism is dead even for many a pious savant still on the prayer
mat?
Best
wishes,
Zahir Ebrahim,
Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
[1] Martin
Fleischman (Fellow of the Royal Society), Reflections on the
Sociology of Science and Social Responsibility in Science, in
Relationship to Cold Fusion, Accountability in Research, 2000. 8:
p. 19, Taylor and Francis, cached copy at URL:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130616021040/http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/cacheof-reflections-on-the-sociology-of-science-and-social-responsibility-in-science-in-relationship-to-cold-fusion-by-martin-fleischmann-fleischmanreflection.pdf
[2] Rupert
Sheldrake, The Replicability Crisis in Science, a brief survey
of the epistemology of Science pertaining to replicability failure,
approx. date September 2015, source URL:
http://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/blog/the-replicability-crisis-in-science
Caption
“In September 2015, the international scientific journal Nature
published a cartoon showing the temple of “Robust Science”
in a state of collapse. What is going on?” -- Rupert Sheldrake
(image courtesy of Nature via Rupert Sheldrake)
[3] John
Bohannon, Who's Afraid of Peer Review?, Science 04 Oct 2013,
Vol. 342, Issue 6154, pp. 60-65. A spoof paper concocted by Science
reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals, source
URL: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
, PDF: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full.pdf
[4] Prinz et.
al, Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on
potential drug targets?, Correspondence Nature Reviews Drug
Discovery 10, 712, September 2011. The Bayer HealthCare, Germany,
authors claims that only in ~20–25% of the projects was the
relevant published data completely in line with their own in-house
findings, and in almost two-thirds of the projects the published
findings could not be validated! Source URL:
http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html
[5] Zahir
Ebrahim, Global Warming / Climate Change has Become a New Religion - What's it all About?, November 30, 2016 | Updated October 26, 2018,
source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2016/11/global-warming-climate-change-whats-it.html
[6] Zahir
Ebrahim, Between Global Warming and Global Governance –
Concern for Environment is a ‘Hegelian Mind Fck’! A
short study in the epistemology of climate-science when Science is in
the Service of Empire, December 12, 2008, see extended footnotes and
bibliography in context, source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/nb-on-global-warming.html
[7] Zahir
Ebrahim, Comment on Judy Wood's 'The New Hiroshima', A short
study in the epistemology of 9-11 science when Science is in the
Service of Empire, April 26, 2011, source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/04/comment-on-judywoods-new-hiroshima.html
[8] Zahir
Ebrahim, 911 The Sacred Cow of Science, Demonstrating the
epistemology of 9-11 science when Science is NOT in the Service of
Empire, April 17, 2014, source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/04/faq-prove-that-911-narrative-is-big-lie.html
[9] Zahir
Ebrahim, Was America's Moon Landing a Big Lie? How can one
forensically investigate that question today? Disambiguating
Religion, Science and Psychological Warfare Operations, May 24, 2014,
source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/05/was-americas-moon-landing-big-lie.html
[10] Zahir
Ebrahim, What's the truth about modern medicine? Good Medicine vs. Bad Medicine - Corruption of Medicine in the Service of Empire, November 19, 2011 | Revised July 9, 2015,
source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/11/whats-thetruth-about-modern-medicine.html
[11] Zahir
Ebrahim, Ushering in Big Brother, The Fable of the Bees and the Seduction of Science and Technology Corrupting the Intellect and the Soul, November 10, 2011,
source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/11/seduction-of-science-and-technology.html
[12] Zahir
Ebrahim, Some Problems in Epistemology, December 18, 2016 | Final version January 21, 2017,
source URL:
http://faith-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2016/12/some-problems-in-epistemology.html
Source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate.html
Source
Homepage URL:
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/p/science-in-service-of-empire.html
Previous
PDF:
https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate-nov302009i.pdf
The author, an
ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor
justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT,
engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley
(http://tinyurl.com/zahir-patents),
and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden
2003 book was rejected by countless publishers and can be read on the
web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org.
He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org.
Verbatim reproduction license and use of copyrighted material at
http://humanbeingsfirst.org/#Copyright.
First
Published: 11/30/2009 12:00:06 8897 | Last updated (homepage)
06/17/11 10:00:05 9159
Links
fixed and bibliography added Thursday, January 21, 2016
01:00 am
9726
Bibliography updated October 26, 2018
Reflections
on Modernity, Climategate, Pandemic, Peer Review, & Science in
the Service of Empire 29/29