Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Trump Supporters chase Antifa down the street at FREE SPEECH Rally in Berkeley
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) reintroduced a bill known as the Secret Science Reform Act that would prohibit the EPA from “proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based on science that is not transparent or reproducible.” The bill was originally introduced in 2014 though it did not clear all congressional hurdles. Barack Obama—our most super-sciencey president ever—vowed to veto it if ever reached his desk.
Don’t believe me? Here’s the opening sentence from an oppositional op-ed by Dianna Wray of Houston Press: “A lot Republicans hate the Environmental Protection Agency, but have left it to San Antonio Republican Representative Lamar Smith to come up with a bill that, if passed, could actually stop the agency from doing just about anything.”
Oh, I see—if it weren’t for secret science, the EPA wouldn’t have any science at all. According to Wray, if they can’t hide their data and refuse to show their calculations they’ll be “crippled.” There’s just one problem with this idea—secret science is a contradiction in terms. Science isn’t science if its results can’t be held up for inspection, judged worthy or unworthy, and accepted, refined, or rejected. If a theory is too delicate to withstand the heat and pressure of scrutiny, it doesn’t deserve anyone’s acceptance.
Legally speaking, the word “science” was defined in McLean v. Arkansas (1982), a famous court case that exiled creation science from public schools. Judge William Overton found that creation science was not science at all because it failed a five-prong test. According to his decision genuine science must:
1) be guided by natural law;
2) be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3) be testable against the empirical world;
4) have conclusions that are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5) be falsifiable.
Anything that fails even one of these prongs cannot rightly be called science. That’s a high standard. Some might call it too high, though that would depend on whose theory is being put to the test. Nonetheless, the McLean test has value. Ideas that don’t live up it cannot legitimately be called scientific. Whether they’re true or not is another question entirely.
Faktisk er det slet ikke bevist at der fandt et giftgas angreb sted …
her er et billede, som har været bragt som bevis for gasangrebet:
Det synes at vise gasangrbene under behandling
Men hvis det er Sarin-giftgas, burde behandlerne være iført beskyttelsesudstyr (maske + handsker + andet), ellers ville de selv være udsat for nervegiften
Billedet er bl.a. i Paul Watsons video
Her er to indslag, der går i dybden med spørgsmålet:
Først en 14 siders tese , der ikke finder beviser for et syrisk luftangreb, men nærmere på et “jordangreb”, som i givet fald er foretaget af rebellerne:
Det andet indlæg er første del af en video i to dele af Sargon af Akkad,
som er kendt for at undersøge tingene til bunds – og det synes jeg også han gør her:
Bemærk at dette er første video.
Den dokumenterer, hvor CNN laver nyheder ved at hævde at der var tale om et syrisk angreb uden at CNN – eller andre MSM – på noget tidspunkt har dokumenteret dette, ensige dokumenteret at det var et gas angreb
Jeg bringer den anden, når den kommer
Nu kan du jo selv bedømme, om du tror af Assad står bag eller om det er et “false flag” angreb af ISIS/alqaida etc