Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
STARS similar to our Sun — “solar proxies” — enable scientists to look through a window in time to see the harsh conditions prevailing in the early or future Solar System, as well as in planetary systems around other stars. These studies could lead to profound insights into the origin of life on Earth and reveal how likely (or unlikely) the rise…
Control: Communism, Environmentalism and the Overpopulation Myth.
The roots of environmentalism go back to the eighteenth century in the form of the overpopulation myth of Malthusianism, which was all about limiting the human population to prevent a predicted Malthusian Catastrophe, i.e. mass starvation, and for genetic purity, especially among supposedly genetically inferior groups e.g. certain races, cultures and the chronically poor. This is based on the progressive beliefs in materialism, (i.e. there is no spiritual side, only the material we can see and touch), and humanism, (i e. man is the measure of everything and determines morals to suit his circumstances). From these progressive philosophies grew socialism, communism, fascism, the eugenics movement and environmentalism, all of which are about control of the masses by an elite few, and all are basically anti-human, anti-development and anti-freedom.
In 1798 Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principles of Population in which he predicted future starvation based on the assumption that the rate of population growth would far surpass the growth rate of food supplies. Using this, he proposed draconian measures to “fix” an assumed overpopulation problem at a time when world population was below one billion. Malthus made two major erroneous assumptions:
Genetic inferiority and enhanced fertility of less accomplished peoples
No improvement in crop yields per acre.
He assumed that the only way to grow more food was to increase the number of acres under cultivation, which limited the total “carrying capacity” of any region and indeed the world. We now know that yields have improved by orders of magnitude through things such as introduction of more prolific, disease resistant plant varieties and high yield hybrids, nitrogen and mineral fertilization, mechanization and control of insect and rodent pests. Nor did he foresee the natural reduction of family size that usually occurs when people are raised beyond near-starvation subsistence, and when diseases are controlled so that high childhood mortality is reduced.
Using these false assumptions as a “reason,” he advocated government measures to reduce population growth rates among the poor such as regulating marriage, educating for moral abstinence, as well as birth control and sterilization. However, he opposed nutritional relief and improved hospital access that would have reduced infant mortality and extended life spans among the poor. In his opinion, helping the poor only made the supposed overpopulation problem worse. He extended this same philosophy to Africa where he observed that the Tsetse fly and Malaria helped to keep human population numbers and lifespans low, which he saw as a good thing.
This same upside down philosophy persists today among progressives who only typically want to manage the poor while keeping them poor. Malthus was pushing evolution and eugenics long before Charles Darwin and Frances Galton. In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin assumed that the superior races (white Europeans) would eventually cause the extinction of the inferior races (black and brown). Francis Galton coined the term eugenics for a theory about improving the human race through selective breeding and exclusion from reproduction of supposedly genetically inferior groups.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured in centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.
—Charles Darwin, Descent of Man
Because genetic inferiority of certain races, cultures and the poor has largely been rejected by more enlightened geneticists and the public in general, (but apparently not for powerful population control supporters), along with vastly improved food production rates, environmentalism is the latest cause celebre to cover brutal inhumanity to man in the form of forced or coerced population control in places like China, lndia and Africa. The shift from eugenics or racial purity to environmentalism is based on the false assumption that the world is overpopulated, resulting in harm to the environment. This makes environmentalism and population control a perfect match and a good fit for the progressive elite seeking control.
Is it true that the world overpopulated? Only if agriculture had remained as it was in the eighteenth century. However, the advances in crop yields are more than enough to feed the world. There is more than enough food for all. The reason for starvation and poor nutrition is usually political mismanagement or worse, such as well-meaning environmental and population control philanthropic societies, NGOs, UN and local governments intentionally keeping the poorest in their disease ridden squalor without adequate infrastructure to provide for basic needs in order to control the people. A healthy and educated population is much harder for a dictator to control and thereby remain in power.
The best way to stabilize population, if that is the goal, is to raise the standard of living by providing employment, transportation, electricity, medical care, education, clean water and adequate food. It is a well known fact that family size is naturally reduced when living standards are improved beyond the point where excess children are needed to insure replacement of those lost in early childhood to disease and malnutrition. It can be argued that the population is too low in many areas to provide the cooperation and man power to provide better facilities without outside aid. Only cities are overpopulated, and that is usually by choice. As population numbers have grown, the world has seen an increase in the standard of living, as reflected in the global GDP per capita, due to division of labor and shared responsibility for both agriculture and developing infrastructure. We should be doing all we can to raise the world’s poor out of poverty. Caring for the environment is the last thing on the minds of people who are having difficulty feeding their children. Raising their standard of living is the best thing we could do to stabilize the population and protect the environment. Unfortunately, the progressives would rather do the opposite for ideological reasons.
I have seen the benefits of higher population and the negative side of low population myself. I grew up in an area of the Appalachian Mountains where population is low. Services that are available in the cities and towns a couple of hours away are not or only marginally available in these mountainous rural areas. Even finding a plumber or electrician is difficult. Although the situation is better now because of improvements in highways, many in the area still must travel to the cities for proper medical care. Lower population means lower tax basis, fewer businesses, less opportunity. It has been difficult getting businesses, whether they are medical facilities, manufacturing, commercial or food and entertainment, interested in locating in an area where the customer and workforce base are low. It has been particularly difficult getting doctors to come and stay. It hasn’t been that long since the first fast food restaurant came into the area. I bring this up to illustrate the logic of raising the population to improve living standards. Granted, this is a far cry from poor villages in other countries, but it still illustrates the point that higher population brings higher living standards.
 Eugenics is the “science” of improving the human race by selective breeding of genetically superior people and preventing supposedly genetically inferior people from reproducing.
 Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principles of Population, 1798, London
 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species , 1858, London, The Descent of Man, 1871
Solar and wind power, by their very nature, are intermittent and unpredictable. The sun is not always visible and the wind is not always blowing at ideal speeds.
You can’t run a hospital or a manufacturing plant on unpredictable intermittent and fluctuating power.
Fluctuating power can damage computers and electric motors in appliances like refrigerators, heat pumps, etc.
As primary power sources, solar and wind power require back up power from other more consistent sources. Their unpredictable nature makes it difficult to supply consistent power as needed through back up sources like fossil fuel and hydroelectric power plants, which cannot change their output quickly, and must run at less than peak efficiency to be ready when needed.
More realistically, wind and solar can only provide a small amount of supplementary power to other more reliable sources like fossil fuel or hydroelectric plants.
Solar and wind require covering large areas with turbines or solar arrays to supply power, which necessarily disrupts ecosystems.
Solar panels and wind generators require exotic “rare earth” minerals, whose extraction is very polluting due to the naturally dispersed nature of rare earths (thus the name).
Solar panels are very inefficient and short lived, e.g. typically less than 30% efficiency for 15 to 20 years with declining efficiency over time. Efficiency varies with the time of day/angle of the sun, latitude, prevalence of clouds and dust accumulation. Disposal of wastes are also problematic.
Solar plants using mirrors aimed at a steam generator are low tech but their high heat kills birds.
Wind turbines kill birds and bats and produce infra-sound that may be harmful to animals and humans.
10. Why do environmentalists hate hydroelectric power, which is the cleanest and most reliable power source
Environmentalists oppose hydroelectric power for two reasons.
The first and real reason is that their socialistic goal is to cripple economies and reduce populations that these sources would support.
(“Giving society cheap abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Paul Ehrlich or paraphrased: “Like giving a loaded gun to a child”)
They dream of a return to idealized more primitive times, which were, in reality, brutal and polluting.
In reality, the best way to protect the environment and stabilize family sizes is to raise poor people in developing countries out of their disease ridden squalor. They’re not lazy, just sick. Poverty, not population size, is the cause of environmental damage.
Africa, for example, has largely untapped hydroelectric capacity beyond their energy needs for the foreseeable future, but that would support a larger population, which the environmentalists fight against.
The second “reason,” aka excuse, is disruption of the environment.
They don’t seem to mind the environmental disruption by wind and solar farms.
Hydroelectric power using large to small waterfalls provides reliable power with minimal impact.
Hydroelectric dams require reservoirs that fill slowly to cover formerly dry land, (so the downstream river is not starved in the process), which temporarily disrupts ecosystems that historically have quickly adapted.
They prevent periodic downstream flooding that causes misery and death.
They provide water for homes, industry and agriculture, and jobs from fishing and tourism.
If there is a shortage of fresh water in the world, as claimed by environmentalists, it is because reservoirs are needed.
Environmental groups have prevented the construction of over 200 hydroelectric dams in Africa alone.
Is the universe expanding from a Big Bang or is it a misinterpretation of the redshift of light?
The Big Bang and the expanding universe probably are illusions that fit the progressive agenda of an ever evolving universe.
It also closes the door on the infinite series of cause and effect that requires a first cause outside the system to get it started, aka God/ creator/ overarching, pre-existing force. If time itself began with the Big Bang, there can be no “before,” thus cutting off any consideration of a first cause.
The Big Bang theory is based on three things:
1.) An interpretation of the redshift of light from other galaxies as speed of recession,
2.) One of many solutions to Einstein’s field equations that favored an expanding universe. Einstein’s own solution included a cosmological constant that resulted in a non-expanding universe.
3.) The Cosmic Microwave Background (or CMB) interpreted as the far red shifted afterglow of the Big Bang.
Redshift is really the shift of the dark absorption lines of elements to longer, redder, wavelengths. Hydrogen is usually used because of its abundance.
Before discussing redshift to distance let me set the stage. It’s the 1920s.
Before telescopes were powerful enough to see individual stars in other galaxies, our galaxy was assumed to be the entire universe and galaxies were assumed to be clouds of glowing gas called nebulae (meaning clouds) within our galaxy.
We now estimate there are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
Cepheid variable stars with the same variability period had been determined to be the same brightness everywhere, which made them a “standard candle” to determine distance, first in our galaxy and then in other galaxies. When individual stars were first seen in other galaxies, using the most powerful telescope of the time, nebulae were identified as other “island universes,” aka galaxies.
Redshift of stars in our galaxy were determined to be caused by their speed moving away from us. The faster, the greater the redshift by the Doppler Effect, where light is “stretched” by the speed of the source.
Redshifts in nebulae (nearby galaxies) were known to be greater than redshifts within our own galaxy.
Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift to distance relationship for nearby galaxies, based on Cepheid variable stars within them. By this he calculated that farther is redder.
Because the redshift from nearby stars in our galaxy had been recognized as indicating their speed away from us, this new redshift was assumed to mean speed of recession of galaxies.
Hubble noted that the redshift to distance relationship was only linear if he assumed fixed, not receding galaxies.
He was also uncomfortable with the extreme speeds calculated from redshift which were rapidly approaching the speed of light with increasing distance.
His redshift to distance calculations resulted in very small universe with a “Big Bang” point of origin only 2 billion years ago, which is less than the calculated age of the earth at 4.5 billion years. Later adjustments extended it to 13.7 years ago, which is still only 3 times the age of the earth.
He spent the rest of his life trying to convince others that they were wrong about redshift meaning speed of recession.
Today’s redshift calculations exclude nearby galaxies as being affected by gravity of the Local Group of galaxies.
Cosmological and relativistic terms have been added to the calculations, so the relationship is no longer linear
A redshift of 1, as a simple ratio, is equal to the speed of light; we now have redshifts greater than 8.
This made it necessary for cosmologists to assume that space itself between galaxies is expanding faster than the speed of light, the upper limit of speed for ordinary matter.
Fritz Zwicky, a contemporary of Hubble, proposed that the red shift is from loss of energy by gravitational interaction over time that fits observations better than other non-speed related theories.
To be a valid theory, the redshift must occur uniformly for the entire spectrum and not blur or obscure distant objects by scattering light. All theories based on repeated collisions in space do not fit these requirements.
History rewritten: Modern cosmologists claim Zwicky’s theory was about collisions. His original paper discussed collision related theories and eliminated them in favor of gravitational influence over time and distance.
More recently Steven Weinberg and others have raised speculation that mirrored Zwicky’s theory of gravitational influence over time causing red shifts, but they were not ready to abandon the expanding universe paradigm.
“The frequency of light is also affected by the gravitational field of the universe, and it is neither useful nor strictly correct to interpret the frequency shifts of light…in terms of the special relativistic Doppler effect.” Steven Weinberg and Jaylant Narlikar and John Wheeler, quoted in “Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered,” by Sten Odenwald and Rick Fienberg, Sky &Telescope, February 1993 issue.
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is interpreted as the far red shifted afterglow of the Big Bang. However, the temperature of thinly dispersed matter in space as a result of residual starlight was earlier calculated and predicted by Guillaume, (5 K < T < 6 K),26 Eddington, (T = 3.1 K), Regener and Nernst, (T = 2.8 K), McKellar and Herzberg, (T = 2.3 K), Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, (1.9 K < T < 6.0 K) based on a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion. Penzias and Wilson experimentally found the cosmic microwave background radiation to be consistent with a temperature of 2.7 K. Gamow, who had claimed to be the originator of the Big Bang Theory, also erroneously claimed he had been the first to predict the background temperature and claimed the result as evidence for the Big Bang. However, his estimate was not only not the first, but was 7 K with an upper limit of 50K.
Did Einstein really say his cosmological constant (for a non-expanding universe) was his biggest mistake?
The so-called Einstein quote that his cosmological constant was the “biggest blunder” of his life was only claimed by George Gamow in 1970, 15 years after Einstein died.
Einstein’s friends and research associates denied it but claimed that, if he said it, it was a joke. (the polite way to avoid calling Gamow a liar.)
Conclusion: If the universe is not expanding from a Big Bang, it can be far larger and much older than the Big Bang theory allows. The observable universe, observed back to approx. 13.5 billion years, may be a small corner of a much grander universe, which could allow more time for formation of galaxies and larger structures without the proposed dark matter influence. Exotic inventions such as expanding space, dark energy and dark matter may not be necessary. Recent work using near-infrared data from the Spitzer space telescope to more accurately estimate mass of numerous galaxies explains galaxy rotation speeds without resorting to exotic dark matter.
 Original Report: “On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines Through Interstellar Space,” By F. Zwicky, Norman Bridge Laboratory Of Physics, California Institute Of Technology, August 26, 1929
 History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson” A. K. T. Assis, Instituto de Fisica “Gleb Wataghin” Universidade Estadual deCampinas 13083-970 Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brasil M. C. D. Neves Departamento de Fisica Universidade Estadual de Maringa 87020-900 Maringa, PR, Brasil
 “The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies,” by Stacy S. McGaugh and Federico Lelli, Department of Astronomy, Case Western Reserve University, James M. Schombert, Department of Physics, University of Oregon (Dated: September 21, 2016) arXiv: 1609.05917v1 astro-physics. GA
Want to know more about this and other Modern Myths including climate change, evolution, origin of life or quantum physics? See related posts on this website or buy the book Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science in print or as e-book/Kindle on line at WND Superstore (the publisher) or at Amazon, Books-a-Million or Barnes & Noble .
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS, 1958 (note how many have been accomplished)
From The Naked Communist by Dr. Cleon Skousen, 1958 read into the Congressional Record in 1963
U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war Y (false choice)
U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. Y (false choice)
Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. Y
Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. Y
Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites. Y
Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist (or Islamist) domination. Y
Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N. Y
Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N. Y
Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress. Y
Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N. Y
Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.) Y
Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. Y
Do away with all loyalty oaths. Y
Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office. Y
Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. Y
Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. Y
Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks. Y
Gain control of all student newspapers. Y
Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. Y
Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions. Y
Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. Y
Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.” Y
Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.” Y
Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. Y
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Y
Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” Y
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.” Y
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principal of “separation of church and state.” Y
Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. Y
Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.” Y
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. Y
Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. Y
Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus. Y
Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Y
Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI. N
Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. Y
Infiltrate and gain control of big business. Y/N
Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat]. Y
Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals. Y
Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Y
Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. Y
Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems. Y
Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.Y
Internationalize the Panama Canal. Y
Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike. N
Assumption: Man’s nature can be molded to serve the state altruistically
Truth: Man’s nature is fixed; self comes first and work for the state fulfills self-interest, but only after his/her basic needs are met.
Assumption: People are only members of a supposedly uniform group
Truth: People are individuals and each has value; groups are not uniform
Assumption: Competition is bad and unfair
Truth: Competition is good; it produces more and better products and services at lower prices for all through incentives
Assumption: Winning is unfair to losers and all others
Truth: Winning is good for all; it encourages people to strive to do better and gives everyone a goal to strive for.
Assumption: Equal outcomes are more fair
Truth: Equal outcomes are unfair to achievers, but equal opportunity is good; outcomes will vary based on ability and effort; equal opportunity encourages people to try harder and to do better. Equal outcome penalizes people with more skills, talent and that work harder. It is a “race to mediocrity.”
Assumption: The economy is a zero-sum game; the pie is a fixed size; if some get more it is because others are deprived.
Truth: The economy is a dynamic, growing system; the pie can expand with new opportunities, goods, services; success of one does not detract from future successes of others. A rising tide raises all boats.
Assumption: “The Rich” are evil and unfair; they are hoarding so others must do without
Truth: “The Rich,” aka successful people, invest, employ, build, improve and give charitably to humane and environmentally friendly causes.
Assumption: Big Corporations are bad; they’re only after the money and don’t care about the environment or the people.
Truth: See Truth: “The Rich” above; as models they incentivize others to compete for market share through innovation and extra effort. They also must live in the world they create so that care for society and the environment are naturally important to them.
Assumption: Big Corporations exploit workers
Truth: Corporations provide employees with income and benefits they otherwise wouldn’t have. It is in their best interest to pay people a wage that allows them to buy the goods produced or sold. To keep the best employees, wages are kept competitive.
Assumption: Big Corporations are greedy and keep profits for themselves.
Truth: Corporations provide wages and valuable goods and services, but wouldn’t stay in business if they got nothing from it. Corporations must have reserves to survive in bad times, meet payrolls, grow the business, provide secure retirement for employees, support advertising, research and innovation, invest or buy smaller businesses to expand product lines and grow market share.
In Perverted Truth Exposed, Kay Kiser exposes areas of science that have been corrupted by progressive and atheist philosophies disguised as science, including the theories of evolution, origin of life, cosmology, and quantum physics.
The climate change debate presents a modern example of how the perversion of science is politically imposed to support an anti-God, anti-human progress agenda of Marxist control and power while silencing opposition through intimidation. Kiser also answers:
Did Darwin really steal his theory of evolution from Alfred Wallace?
Why did Wallace later abandon the theory as not having sufficient evidence?
If Hubble discovered the expanding universe leading to the Big Bang Theory, why did he continually try to convince others that their conclusion was wrong?
Is man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming or is it a trailing indicator of climate change in a system dominated by solar cycles, cloud cover, and ocean currents?