I've tried posting in Reaper"s (Ian's) blog but there seems to be a problem so I decided to do it here. I hope he reads it. This post is open to comment by all and if one of the power people read this maybe they could check out why my post wouldn't take in his blog. Anyway this is how it would have read had this been his blog.
I've taken a quote from your (Ian) last blog so forgive me ok?
Then im off to history (the most bs class ive ever had), actually thats what ill make this post about today, how BULLSHIT the information we are getting taught these days is. Ill explain later bercause what they teach in schools now a days is total lies. And if you already dont believe that ill make you a believer, all our history they teach us is NOT what happened and its pissing me off that i have to correct my teacher all the time lol.
There not total lies, total lies never sell for long. There "Half Truths," because if something has a ring of truth to it most people will buy it. The act of spreading lets call it, "Less than perfect" information has tainted all of recorded history, but it goes much deeper than that. Science has it's faults too! A good example is this notion that second hand smoke is as or more harmful to people around the smoker. This notion is all based on a study done by the EPA. It was proven in a court of law that the EPA fudged the data to produce the results they wanted. This is a documented fact. No other credible study has ever been done on this subject and to this day this same tainted study is sited and used as the basis for all the smoking bans instituted across the country. The fact is; We don't know for sure! A notion based on a lie is crap!
Let's look at Global Warming for a minute. The predictions of global warming are based on computer modeling not on the actual data. The actual data suggests something different. How good are the models? Well the long range weather forecasts we get every day are based on computer models. You tell me, how good are they? Bear in mind that they use three of them and go with the the two that come closest to one another. The facts are that most people that write the programing for these models don't really believe that a good computer model will ever be written.
The list goes on and on. Is milk good or bad for you? Does any one know for sure?
In science, the peer review system is riddled with political agenda and until these jokers get their act together anything that comes out of it is suspect! I could go into all the reasons for this here but it would fill half a book. I will give you one example though.
There was a study done to look into how the expectations of scientific teams effected the outcome of there work. Two teams where used. Each team was given a set of genetically identical rats, Team 1 was told that the rats were dumb rats and were expected to run the maze slower that normal rats. Team 2 was told that these were smart rats and should run the maze faster than normal rats. They were then left to complete their work of testing the rats speed in the maze. How did it turn out? I think you can guess. Team 1 found that the rats were slower and Team 2 said the rats were faster.
How's your confidence in science now?
Am I saying that all science is crap? No. I'm saying that they have problems with the way they come to conclusions. The system is broken and until someone fixes it I wouldn't put much stock in the information.