Climate Change DEBUNKED by .17% of Scientists

Author James Powell was curious. What exactly does it mean when a willfully ignorant person says there is, “no scientific consensus” on climate change?

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology

…24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming… The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming,” for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17. For an analysis of the 113 citations, see here.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.

So, if this is kind of the biggest deal ever, why was it never mentioned during the 2012 presidential debates? You should know that by now, educated one. If not, get educated, then Occupy Educated!

Americans Trade Their Right to Habeus Corpus For Marriage Equality?


Let us get this straight. The government has the right to jail us forever, for no reason, as long as we can get married there?

How quick Americans and the media are to forget about the stripping of our basic human rights, as seen so casually and easily with indefinite detention made permanent law by the National Defense Authorization Act.  Throw us a social bone — the basic right to marry — and the country’s most atrocious crime against its people is a distant memory, even though groundbreaking progress against the nasty 2012 NDAA provisions by Occupy activist Chris Hedges is going on right now.

As it stands, Section 1021 is open to an interpretation that could subject anyone who has ever come into contact with Al Qaeda or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States,” to indefinite detention. Considering Al Qaeda is just a convenient legal name for a non-grouping of groups that have similar distaste for US foreign policy, it was easy for the judge and even the government’s own lawyers to see how just about anyone can fall into a zealous government’s definition of “any person”.

(Judge) Forrest found the language too vague, and repeatedly tried to get government attorneys to say that the reporters’ fears were unfounded. The lawyers declined.

“At the hearing on this motion, the government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under [section] 1021,” Forrest wrote. “Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years.

“An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so,” Forrest wrote. “In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more.”

We are all caught up on a man’s stated opinion on a social issue directly affecting some of us*, when in fact it is that same man’s actions that affect all of us, but on a much deeper level.  Why are social issues so much more important to us than foundational issues — the foundation upon which we can afford to debate these social issues at all?

Why is there so much back-patting for Obama on social media, while his actions are backstabbing to the same fans/base?

Bread and circuses.  Join us on Facebook and read The Shock Doctrine.

*Indeed, marriage equality does affect all of us, some more directly than others. Debate over this perspective is best discussed outside of jail, so feel free (because you currently are) to comment below.


Is Occupy Leftist? Huffington Post Thinks So


That’s what this article and book are saying on AOL-owned HuffPo Radio piece called: Both Sides: Are We All Pre-wired Left or Right? Do Beliefs Precede Facts?

Left and Right then self-segregate into their own enclaves where they only hear their own side ratified — think a Tea Party rally and Occupy Wall Street protest.

Do you agree? Is it left to recognize facts that a growth-based, unchecked plutocracy is using up our resources? Are you a socialist to understand how Bank of America and Goldman Sachs profited from deceit at the expense of 99% of us?

Is this Ron Paul supporter a left-wing freak for understanding that the monetary supply is based on debt — nothing?

Should we let this go unchecked, or skip the fallacy of left/right?

Thanks for the Donations to #OccupyEducated!… and Why We’re Grateful!


Those of us who have a deeper understanding of the flaws in our system contribute what we have, in order to awaken the rest of the population.


Sometimes that means we can get out on the streets and educate first hand, but when that opportunity falls short, due to the need to pay the bills, it’s fantastic that those with less time can make their voice heard in the form of supporting those that speak for them. The fact that you effectively say we are sharing your voice is a big boost to our enthusiasm.

All right, yeah, so it’s a been over a month since our last blog.  But we have a excuses we hope you will find satisfactory.

#1. #OccupyEducated is not really about what wehave to say, it’s about these great authors and filmmakers who can provide a deeper understanding of our systems, and the flaws therein.

#2. It’s about you, too — sharing and contributing your knowledge.

#3. We’re working on our next big steps.

#4. As of now, there’s more active participation on Facebook and Twitter, so we’re keeping it real by focusing our messaging on those platforms.

Just know that your donations help us pay for site stuff (domain payments, upgrades, etc.) and keep us eating, so we can continue getting your knowledge out there.

So, thanks again, especially to Leon, Frederick (Fred?), Jason, Donna, Leslie, Ali, Susan, Tom, Peng, Patricia (Tricia?) Joachim and all the privates — must be George Soros funding our “fancy socialist propaganda website”, right? :)

 

FOX News’ First Lie Came Before FOX Existed – Richard Nixon’s Infomercial in 1968


SHARE and Subscribe if you want to help your friends see through media propaganda and think for themselves.

To understand the subtleties of the FOX News propaganda machine, which is so good that even some of its “journalists” think they’re working at a real news agency, you have to understand the history of FOX News creator Roger Ailes. FOX News’ sappling was rooted not its 1996 debut, but in the fertile ground of RIchard Nixon’s 1968 presidential campaign, when Ailes used the comfy talk-show/town-hall format to create an infomercial designed to redefine Nixon, from perpetual loser to predestined leader.

Ailes’ brilliant idea for this fake town hall is indistinguishable from the real deal, to the untrained eye. Put yourself in the shoes of the 1968 everyman/woman/child, without FactCheck.org, without the diverse view of a hundred pundits and a million bloggers to hear after the airing, and consider whether you would have been able to tell the difference. With this propaganda machine blurring the line between fact and fiction TV, there is no doubt it helped convince voters to anoint one of the more disturbed persons to ever hold the office (though admittedly, there are many candidates in that race).

Here’s the full broadcast. Fittingly, Mitt Romney’s dad makes an appearance at 2:15.

Relying on this program and a barrage of TV ads, Nixon was able to stay in the public eye, even while his campaign kept him away from the press; the only reporters to whom he gave two-minute interviews were already drunk on unlimited food and alcohol provided by the campaign, assuring they “fell into a state of what one can only call astounded torpor.” In modern times, many pundits would questions whether this would assure the public received fair and balanced reporting, so instead, the Republican Party media wing that is FOX News simply provides millions of dollars in salary and perks a year to the only reporters Republican candidates will grant access.*

Get deeper into the technique of psychological manipulation by reading – but for democracy’s sake, not buying – Ailes’s book, You Are The Message: Secrets of Master Communicators

To know more about the policies Nixon was able to pass, and how he did so, see The Shock Doctrine on our Primer List of essential information on understanding the root problems of our system.

*OccupyEducated.org was unable to confirm reports that FOX News green rooms contain abundant Twinkies and other Monsanto-based products.