March for Science

In The News

March for Science

In The News - James Tissot - Going to Business

(PD) James Tissot - Going to Business - In The News

Larry Neal Gowdy

Copyright ©2017-2021 - updated June 11, 2021

Here's Your Sign!

The mass news media recently reported that "thousands" of people "in over 600 cities" around the world had marched in pro-science protests. It is unknown what the factual numbers might have been, but the news media did show photographs of some of the protesters, and many of the protesters carried signs. Regardless of what the news media and protesters might have claimed as being the purpose of the marches, the signs were evidence of something else.

For thousands of years, all coherent religions and philosophies have always taught positive behaviors. For over a hundred years some science researchers have commented on the evidence that negative emotions destroy the mind and body, and recent comments by researchers have spoken of how negative emotions also kill brain cells. Parents' emotions can be passed-down to the children, sometimes skipping a generation, but strong emotions expressed by a parent are likely to be felt and to be expressed by the children. One's own behavior can become as if a genetic trait of one's descendants, and if the behaviors are negative, then the individual has doomed generations to lives of negativity.

I would enjoy entering into a lengthy discussion of emotions, but for brevity's sake, I will merely touch on each topic.

Negativity harms the speaker, the listener, the family, the society, the species, and the planet itself.

That which is creative, is positive, and creativity can only exist within harmony. Negativity has no harmony, and negativity is always destructive. The callous disregard for others is a negative behavior, and it is also a core symptom of psychopathy.

March for Science sign: "Making ####### up is not a valid science policy"

I chose to use '#######' instead of the sign's actual word because the sign's word was vulgar, violent, hateful, disrespectful, and very negative. If an individual did believe in science, then the individual would be amongst the most kind, caring, compassionate, polite, gentle, and loving people on earth. The sign's words were proof that the person carrying the sign did not believe in science.

In a related series of news stories, it was claimed that people who use vulgarity are smart, and that swearing is a "sign of more intelligence" (yes, the quote is correct). Anyone can be crude and ugly, but only an intelligent conscious individual can be mindful of their tongue.

Please research the symptoms of agnosia and alexithymia. To not know that the use of vulgarity is accompanied with negative emotions, it is symptomatic of alexithymia, the mental inability to recognize one's own emotions, which runs alongside of agnosia which is a mental disease of being severely restricted in the mental processing of sensory perceptions. Using vulgarity in public is symptomatic of agnosia, alexithymia, dementia, and psychopathy.

Other news stories have claimed that scientists have proven that all emotions and all biases are formed unconsciously, which implies that the scientists and news reporters have no conscious control over their emotions, no conscious control over their judgments, nor a conscious control over the words that they speak. Perhaps it might be true that the scientists, reporters, and protesters have no mental control over their violent outbursts, but the negative behavior does not exist within healthy humans.

If a person truly did believe in science, then the person would also believe in evolution as well as science's conclusions that emotions and mannerisms are passed down to offspring, and the believer would then consciously choose the emotions and mannerisms in their own lives that would produce superior offspring. Science believers are not doing that, which proves that no one believes in science, including the protesters.

The news stories that claimed the march was pro-science, were false. The news stories that claimed vulgarity to be smart, were false. The news stories that claimed emotions and biases to be unconscious in all humans, were false.

Mindful, it means to be mindful, to be thinking. To be vulgar in public, it is not thinking of other people, nor caring; it is a callous disregard for other people; psychopathy.

It is unfortunate that there exist people who lie and harm others, but that is just the way it is, and each individual must themselves exert the effort — be mindful — to discern right from wrong.

March for Science sign: "Earth Dying Stop Denying"

Some of us plant more trees than what we consume, and some of us choose housing that is small and uses 50% to 99% less energy than normal homes, but not all people do so. If an individual lives in a modern city, consumes modern products, uses wireless networking, and carries a cell phone, then that individual is the cause of the problem, and the sign becomes hypocrisy.

March for Science sign: "Alternate Energy Not Alternate Facts"

Please describe with details the quantities of energy (electrical, fossil, and thermal) consumed to create one photovoltaic (PV) panel, and please begin with the manufacturing of the trucks and equipment that dig the mines and transport the ore. It is unfortunate that the news media and PV salesmen have claimed that PV panels can produce more energy than what was used to create the panels, and it is more unfortunate that the public does not cross-light the thoughts that PV panels must be produced from ores, and that the salesmen and reporters have denied science's laws of thermodynamics.

It is not a disgrace to have no knowledge of electrical energy, but it is a disgrace to claim that one form of energy is better than another if the individual has no knowledge of either.

If an individual were truly concerned about energy consumption, then the individual could help the world by turning off electrical switches, living in a smaller home, using DC devices instead of AC, and driving much less. Just buy less stuff and use less energy for one's self; it really is that simple.

March for Science sign: "Facts Trump Fiction"

The march was, as expected, politically slanted to agree with what the news media had dishonestly claimed, and the marches were not at all about science and the environment.

Hating on a living person, especially in public, is the behavior of psychopathy and psychological terrorism. Regardless of how poor all known politicians may have behaved, still there was no excuse for the marchers to purposefully be rude, hateful, violent, and negative.

The inability to recognize emotions in others — in this case the emotions of politicians' — is symptomatic of agnosia and alexithymia. Having voted, the person carrying the sign proved the symptoms of agnosia and alexithymia.

March for Science sign: "I March For Science Periodically"

That sign was cute and sort of rational in its own little way, but still the marching was negative.

March for Science sign: "Science Reveals Reality"

That sign is sad for those who believe the words.

March for Science sign: "Climate Change Is Real. Teach Science"

Professional scientists disagree on whether there really is climate change, or whether the changes might be natural cycles. Whose science should be taught if scientists disagree themselves?

If the marcher were concerned of the environment, then why did the marcher waste so much energy to drive to the march, waste tree products on a sign, pollute the environment when they threw the sign in the trash, and carry a cell phone? How many thousands of trees has the marcher planted in their life? None? The march was not about science, nor the environment.

What evidence exists of climate change? Neither the general public nor the typical scientist can so much as describe an electromagnetic wave, and though the general public has been led to believe that man-made measuring devices are accurate, all qualified technicians know that all known test equipment is vulnerable to ambient influences. Upon what reasoning does the public assume that the microwave radiation from their cell phones is not corrupting the readings that rely on microwave measurements? If an individual knows nothing of electromagnetic waves, then it is irrational to claim that their cell phones and wireless devices have no influence on measuring devices.

Please research places like Green Bank, West Virginia where wireless devices are outlawed. Just because almost no one knows anything about electromagnetic radiation interference, it does not necessitate that the interference does not exist.

The 'March for Science' was not about science, nor about climate change; the march was merely political, and very negative.

When I was young, I sometimes thought of a metaphorical teaching that I felt could likely never be literally true without a catastrophic change within the solar system, but in recent decades I have been humored of the teaching possibly becoming literal: "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an microwave oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble:" (Malachi 4:1, King James version with an interpretative 21st century slant.) People are already irradiating themselves with large quantities of microwave in their homes, and the current trends of perpetually adding more microwave devices will eventually result in a planet that will literally be as a microwave oven. Car manufacturers now have microwave emitters in most all cars, microwave is used for driverless cars, Google® wants to use blimps to irradiate any regions without microwave, the Internet of Things wants to put microwave emitters in all devices in all homes, schools force children to endure thousands of microwave fields for several hours each day, and there is no end of the insanity. Most humans sincerely cannot stop a destructive behavior once it has begun.

There are two 'climate change' variables that I would like to further investigate personally, but the news media is the only source of opinion that the public will accept, and so there is no value in researchers presenting evidence that the public does not want to hear.

One of the variables is perhaps the most visible to everyone, and though all news media claim that the variable proves global warming, and though most all known scientists agree, I have found it to be very peculiar that none of the beliefs have cross-lighted another thing that is far more plausible as the cause. I would have to invest about half an hour to do the research and math, but it would be entertaining to see how close the sums match.

If climate change effect 'A' were measured to be 12.3456, and the popular cause 'B' has too many variables with none summing higher than 1 (and often having an opposite sum), but an unpopular cause 'C' is measured to be 12.3456 (and yes, preliminary measurements do show C to correlate with A), then what can be done? If C is indeed the cause of A, then there is a fix, but it will not happen because [1] the cost in dollars would be high (although cheaper than the destruction caused by A), [2] it would require 20 to 50 years to complete, [3] almost no one will choose to not use wireless devices, and [4] almost no one really cares anyway.

And that is the core problem with the global warming debates: the debaters really do not care, nor do the protesters.

March for Science sign: "What do we Want? Evidence Based Science. When do we Want It? AFTER PEER REVIEW"

And who are the peers? Those who carried signs had already given evidence that they did not believe in science, but, rather, perhaps merely desired the popular public opinion of, and approved by, the popularly-elected peers: themselves.

March for Science sign: "Science Saves Species!"

Was the sign written sincerely, or was it a joke? I have seen similar signs for other religions, and the one that comes to mind first is the one that states "Jesus Saves". At least Jesus was likely a real historical person, and the religion's positive effect of positive behavior is beneficial, but science cannot make either claim for itself. Nevertheless, no, humans have saved some species; science is a mere noun, a subjective word, a subjectively self-created imaginary classification that means absolutely nothing except to the person who uses the term; science is not a real being.

Nevertheless, if 'science' saved some species, then why is science not saving the human species? Why are the marchers carrying cell phones, speaking vulgarly, acting with violence, and causing the negative emotions that are killing the human species?

Why do people claim that their cell phones are safe because of "low wattage", in spite of the fact that the same people do not so much as know what a watt is? Even the FCC states "For exposure to RF energy from wireless devices, the allowable FCC SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), as averaged over one gram of tissue." Where is the science? Are government employees really that incompetent?

A watt is a term for a mathematical formula that multiplies voltage by amperage. 'Watt' describes absolutely nothing of voltage, amperage, of a field's strength, patterning, inductance, capacitance, transductance, nor anything else whatsoever. A common car battery has over twice the wattage as a common stun gun, but the car battery can be touched without feeling anything, while the stun gun can kill. There are countless hundreds of other common examples that are in plain sight that almost everyone in society sees every day of their lives, but almost no one bothers to cross-light what they see with what they have been told to believe by the news media.

Humans save (and kill) species; science does nothing.

March for Science sign: "SCIENCE IS GLOBAL"

To many individuals, science is a religion, a name given to an unknown that is worshipped and deified with omnipresence (global), omnipotence (can do anything), and omniscience (the one true truth that knows everything). Subservience to authority (e.g. Milgram experiment) is symptomatic of a frail intelligence, and it gives nascent to cultish worship, including the cult of sciencism. Many humans today sacrifice their children to be vivisectioned to death by the science gods, and the people sincerely do believe that it is okay for scientists to murder children 'because it's science!'.

I myself have never met nor heard of an individual who truly believes in science enough to actually do what science teaches to do. Almost everyone has told me that science is true truth, and that they believe in science, but not yet has there been any evidence throughout all of recorded history that any science believer has ever acted within agreement with the science that states that negativity destroys the mind, the body, the family, the society, the species, and the planet itself. People may worship science, but they do not believe in science enough to actually do what science says is the right thing to do.

Science believers believe in evolution, but there are no known science believers who correlate evolution with the believers' own behaviors. The negative behavior of the many is driving the human evolution into a creature that is progressively becoming more inept each generation, so inept that the current generation cannot so much as cross-light a thing on their left with what is on their right (please research Lewis Terman's term for people who cannot cross-light thoughts). No one, absolutely no one on earth truly believes in science, including the protesters and news media.

Eliminating the Negatives

I do not believe that it is unreasonable for me to ask people to please be kind, to be courteous, to be mindful of their actions, and to care that their own thoughts and behaviors do as little harm as possible, but, of course, mindfulness is not a thing that negative people can do, nor ever will do... and the world suffers.

I have not been online much in the past few years (the Internet's negativity, perversions, fake news, fake science, and callous disregard for others has become intolerable), and so I have not kept an eye on any changes of sites that might be connected to my own. In recent weeks I have begun to eliminate potential ties with sites where individuals have publically voiced disrespect, vulgarity, hate, and/or bipolar-like rants about living politicians (rants that are based upon what people have been told to believe by the news media). For several years I have been wanting to delete a couple pages on one of my own websites that have poor choices of words that were written by another individual, and now it feels to be a good time to finally see the pages disappear.

I also have several articles in which I used the terms related to a topic that I had been researching, and I know that the terms were not as kind as they could have been, so as time permits, I will be fixing my own errors with the aim of returning to kinder words that I used to choose for all of my public writings.

Amongst the most damaging of negativity is the necessity of the negativity being repulsed, which is also an act of negativity. If everyone in the world who believes in science were to behave as science teaches, then all wars would immediately stop, and the earth would become a paradise planet within a few years, but, no one believes in science, and the wars and pollution will continue until man finally kills everything within his grasp.

For most all of my life I have only had one thing to say as a teaching for one's own life: care about other people. Caring about other people naturally creates a continuous conscious attention towards the world beyond the self, the caring is of a continuous processing of thoughts that weigh each choice of words and actions, the caring creates positive relationships between all living beings, and the continuous mental effort increases one's own intelligence. Caring about other people is also a behavior that agrees with all coherent religions and sciences, but caring is a thing that is done firsthand, not followed. To not care about other people, it is a symptom of psychopathy, and it is the act that negative people have chosen for themselves. It really is okay to think for one's self, to have one's own thoughts, to be conscious, to be mindful, and to willfully choose the intelligent choice of caring to make the correct choices.