Are People In The Developed Nations Turning Away From Diversity?

A psychological study in the USA has concluded that Caucasians are expressing declining support for diversity.

In their study, which even a cursory examanation will reveal is deeply flawed, the psychologists conclude that white Americanshave come to view diversity and multiculturalism more negatively as the U.S. moves toward becoming a minority-majority nation, a team of UCLA psychologists report.

The researchers split a sample of 98 white Americans half male, half female, representative of regional, socio – economic classes and religious backgrounds, with an average age of 37, randomly into two groups. One group was told that whites will no longer be the majority in the U.S. by 2050; in fact, this is likely to be true as soon as 2043, according to some projections. The second group was told that whites would retain their majority status in the U.S. through at least 2050. All participants were then asked a series of questions about their views on diversity.

“Whites feel lukewarm about diversity when they are told that they are about to lose their majority status in the United States for the first time,” said Yuen Huo, UCLA professor of psychology and the study’s instigator.

Using a seven-point scale—where 1 meant “strongly disagree” and 7 meant “strongly agree”—subjects were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with statements like “One of the goals of our country should be to teach people from different racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds how to live and work together” and “Americans should understand that differences in backgrounds and experiences can lead to different values and ways of thinking.” Those who believed whites would continue to be the majority gave an average response of 5.67, while those who believed that whites would no longer be the majority gave an average response of just 5.15.

“We see a significant reduction in the endorsement of diversity when white Americans are exposed to current projections of future demographics,” said Felix Danbold, a UCLA psychology doctoral student and the paper’s lead author. “Most Americans view diversity in positive terms, but many white Americans who see the actual demographic projections, and the loss of their majority status, end up being less enthusiastic about it.”

Those in the study who identified themselves as Republicans gave average responses of 4.5, compared with 5.8 for Democrats and 5.7 for independents. Thirty-six percent of the participants were Democrats, 21 percent were Republicans and 31 percent were independents.

Support for diversity was also higher among women, with an average response of 5.7; men’s average response was 5.1.

The main problem with this study is the sample size is far too small to be meaningful, 98 people from a population of 330 million? It’s nowhere near a thousandth of one percent. How can such a small number be considered representative?

Secondly there is the question of how we define diversity for such a study.

The Liberal / progressive movement are so blinkered by their self righteousness they have lost sight of what constitutes diversity. They scream “DON’T LABEL US,” then proceed to label themselves with their identity politics, talking about gay rights, trans rights, black rights, Islamophobia, homophobia and such.
I have some gay friends that, if you met them casually, you would never think they are gay, yet if lefties find out they will tell my friends “You should be proud to be gay.”

Why? my friends would ask. It’s their business alone, all their friends know, nothing to do with anybody else.

On the other hand I had a friend, Charlie, (we lost touch some years ago, no fallout, life just took us in different directions,) who anybody would reasonably assumed from his body language, speech mannerisms and general behaviour, to be gay. He wasn’t, he didn’t question his maleness, he was just who he was (and was married to a lovely woman.)

One of the care providers who visited my late wife in her final illness, A…. is a Muslim. Hijab? Baggy clothes that hide her figure? No way, short skirts, skin tight leggings, revealing tops, false eyelashes and her black hair beautifully styled, that’s the person the world sees.

This is real diversity. I find it ironic that for the left wing activists who scream about equality, diversity is only skin deep and beneath the colour of our skin these social justice activists expect us all to conform to the stereotypes defined by the politically correct left. In my view it is the constant lecturing and haranguing from the far left about how we must accept this, do that, tolerate the other that is turning both Europeans and caucasian Americans against this manufactured diversity that is being imposed on us by the Politically Correct Thought Police.

RELATED POSTS:
Who Would Want To Destroy The World – More People Than You Might Think
Politically Correct Thinking And The Threat To Free Speech
Humanitas catalogue

Dr. Robert Epstein: Google’s Ephemeral Experiences Manipulate People on a ‘Massive Scale’

Dr. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and wel known critic of Google’s use of psychologial techniques to manipulate users decision making process by heavily censoring the information search users are fed, appeared on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss Google’s latest tactics in election manipulation ahead on the us 2020 presidenyial election, and how voters and political campaign managers can combat them with host Alex Marlow.


Robert Epstein – warning us about Google’s evil ambitions

Epstein and Breitbart News editor-in-chief  Marlow discussed the current state of Google’s business and political activities and how the company could use its technology to influence voters.

Host Alex Marlow examined Epstein’s research saying: “I think you put out some pretty hard data on how many votes you think were moved in the 2016 election and I think you estimated it was over two million or so, is that not the case?”

Epstein responded: “Well it was at least 2.6 million and it could have been as many as 10.4 million depending on how aggressive google was in using the various tools they have available to them to shift votes. I can’t pin it down exactly but I know it’s in that range.”

Discussing the need for a system capable of analysing Google search results and suggestions to detect political and commercial bias, Epstein stated: “We need big monitoring systems in place, I’m so far the only person that’s created monitoring systems, I did one in 2016 and one in 2018. I’m trying now to raise funds to build a very big monitoring system for 2020 and to monitor a lot more than Google search results, to monitor newsfeeds, answers that people are getting from their personal assistants.”

Epstein explained that monitoring search results and auto-suggest terms are so important when monitoring election interference, stating: “If you don’t monitor, you can’t go back in time and figure out what these companies were showing people because what they’re showing people is ephemeral. That’s the term that Google’s own employees use internally, they’re showing ephemeral experiences, those really short-lived experiences that kind of appear before your eyes and then disappear, like search results for example.”

Google have openly acknowledged that their algorithms are set up to skew search results against content or sites favouring conservative or libertarian politics, while raising the visibility of liberal or progressive supporting content.

Epstein continued: “They’re using ephemeral experiences to manipulate people on a massive scale, people don’t know they’re being manipulated, and there’s no record kept of those experiences, they’re just generated for you on the fly and then they disappear.”

Listen to the full interview on Breitbart News Daily here.

To us the only question here is why are people still using Google as a search engine? Any pretence to neutrality in raking search relults was abandoned long ago, now search results are ranked in whether they serve Google’s political or financial interests.

RELATED POSTS:
Report reveals Google’s manipulation of search results to influence outcomes.
After years of being called ‘conspiracy theorists’ the wise people who noticed how Google were manipulating search result listings to server the corporation’s business and political ambitions have been proved right …
How will you know who is tracking your internet enabled sex toys
Google omnibus

 

Finnish Climate Study Finds No Evidence That Humans Caused Climate Change

A team of Finnish climate researchers led by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Turku, have have published results of a project which found that the likely human contribution to a rise of 0.1°C in global temperatures over the past 100 years century is just 0.01°C. This is in direct contradiction of  the catastrophic global warming narrative built by research grant phishing Warmageddonist scientists and the bureaucrats of the  UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UN has of course been making political use of Warmageddonist doom prophecies to advance its Agenda 21 and Agenda 30, both of which look like plans for global governance when subjected to critical scrutiny.

Kauppinen and Malmi write in their research analysis paper, dated June 29, 2019, that their research proves that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the instances of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. They claim this is why the models used to make the case for catastrophic warming give a minimal natural temperature change, assigning a substantial change to the contribution of the greenhouse gases in the observed temperature.

This is the reason why IPCC has to use a considerable adjustment of data to compensate for the too small natural component. Further, scientists drafting reports for the IPCC have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds. Also, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

Kauppinen and Malmi explain:
“The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scientific literature. The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highest ones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. The majority of the papers are using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation. These models give very big sensitivities with a very large uncertainty range. Typically sensitivity values are between 2-5 degrees.

IPCC uses these papers to estimate global temperature anomalies and climate sensitivity.

However, there are a lot of papers, where sensitivities lower than one degree are estimated without using GCM.

The basic problem is still missing experimental evidence of the climate sensitivity.

Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature. It turns out that the changes in the relative humidity and in the low cloud cover depend on each other. So, instead of low cloud cover, we can use the changes in the relative humidity in order to derive the natural temperature anomaly. According to the observations, a 1 % increase of the relative humidity decreases the temperature by 0:15°C.

The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans, according to Henry`s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature.

the last hundred years, the temperature is increased by about 0:1°C because of CO2 therefore:

The human contribution was about 0:01°C.”

The J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi report is the latest of many reports from research projects which provide evidence to challenge the scare tactics pushed by the purveyors of the climate change hypothesis and politicians seeking to use the climate change scare to erode our rights and liberties.

The facts show the climate models that have been proven wrong at every step, the Earth’s climate is much more complicated than the algorithms that can be programmed into a computer application could deal with, simply because there are so many unquantifiable effects acting on the climate. The CAGWARTs (Carbon- driven Anthropogenic Global Warming Alternative Reality Trolls still haven’t raised teir heads from their computer screens long enough to work out why the satellite temperature data says, Earth hasn’t warmed in twenty years , why there is still snow in winter, cool spells in summer, why Polar Bear numbers are incresing and where the 50 million people who were due to be displaced by rising sea levels by 2015 have disappeared to, (clue: they’re not hiding under harry Potter’s cloak of invisibility.)

READ a translation of the whole report (.pdf)

RELATED POSTS:

EXPLORE RELATED POSTS:

Some clear thinking on climate change
Climate change: CO2 comparison
Climate effect of CO2 overstated
Climate and the IPCC Agenda

Sharp Rise In Fake Science Publications Embarrasses Germany

Over 5,000 research scientists working in German universities and other higher education institutes have published their research findings in journals run by quasi-scientific publishers, according to a media report released on Thursday.

When researchers publish their results in a scientific journal, it is anticipated that their research theory, scope, assumptions, exclusions, method and data have been subjected to rigorous scrutiny by other scientists in the field in a process known as peer review. Though in recent years the per review  process has been discredited because of the operation of an old boy network in academic research, the system if properly executed acts as a form of quality control, ensuring that studies are scientifically sound before being released to the public.

Quasi-scientific publishers, however, carry out little to no review of the articles (a system known as pal review, you get your pal to say nice things about your research, in return you say nice things about the results of his next project) and often publish the articles soon after receiving them, according to research carried out by German public broadcasters NDR and WDR as well as German news magazine Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin.

The publishers approach scientists and companies around the world, encouraging them to publish their work in one of their journals. The researchers then pay to have their article or study published in one of these journals where it appears within a few days.

The report found that some 400,000 researchers worldwide have used these scientifically dubious journals — knowingly or inadvertently — to publish their work.

MORE SCIENCE

Fascist Science: Global warming research suppressed due to intolerance of scepticism

Al Gore's Green Police
(picture source)

A climate change researcher has echoed the claim made by many well informed but not academically qualified commentators, that climate scientists are confusing their role as impartial observers with green activism after his paper challenging predictions about the speed of global warming was rejected because it was seen as “less than helpful.”

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, says recent pressure resemblig a medieval witch hunt from fellow academics forced him to resign from his post on a climate sceptic think-tank.

Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading claims a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publicatoin in the scientific research journal Environmental Research Letters by scientists who peer-reviewed the work because of an intolerance of conclusions that dissent from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change view that catastrophic climate change can only be aveterted by shovelling shitloads of money into research projects that will confirm more research is needed thus enabling useless fuckers research scientists to keep their piggy suouts in the trough of taxpayers money and never face the horrific prospect that they might have to get proper jobs.

“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist,” Bengtsson told The Times newspaper which is behind a paywall.

Professor Bengtsson claims a scientist advised him that the paper, which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was “less than helpful.”

Helpful to what. If any of that blether about scientific integrity and the scientific method means anything at all, then the only thing that is helpful is people publishing the findings of their research, not ignoring anything that is a tad inconvenient. Such science is similar to the European Union’s neo Nazi approach to democracy.

The Daily Stirrer and our friends Little Nicky Machiavelli and Boggart Blog are sick of saying we told you so and the number of times we have knocked gaping holes in the “expert knowledge” of scientists and academics by simply stating the absoeffinglutely obvious have become too many to count. So here’s veteran television critic and purveyor of common sense spiced with caustic wit, Clive James to say it for us:

Clive James writing in The Daily Telegraph

Because of its many beautiful images of my homeland, I couldn’t help watching the repeat of Australia with Simon Reeve (BBC Two). I thought I was being idle, but suddenly a big idea occurred to me.

It wasn’t my usual idea of ordering my secret squad of ninjas (Agents of CLIVE) to waylay the unacceptably confident Simon and inject him with a suitable narcotic to take the edge off his deplorable enthusiasm. Besides, there must be a lot of viewers, along with his employers, who find his enthusiasm to be the opposite of deplorable: ie they think him an interesting bloke, and even take that terrible little moustache to be a sign of keenness.

No, this was a bigger idea: an idea relevant to countless BBC programmes about the environment over the course of the past decade and a half. Let me try to evoke the moment in which the idea occurred. Simon was talking to a man in charge of a South Australian wine factory which covered thousands of acres with its enormous shining silver vats and bins. The factory produces a zillion bottles of wine per year, and uses, in the process, a gazillion gallons of water.

The water is drawn from the Murray-Darling river system. If it occurred to you to wonder what would happen to the output of wine if the input of water were to be restricted, it occurred to Reeve too. So did he ask the professionally knowledgeable bloke in charge of the wine whether he anticipated any restrictions in the water supply?

No, he asked a climate change expert. In Australia, climate change experts are not hard to find. Indeed it is very hard to keep them out of your car: unless you wind the window all the way up, one of them will climb in. This climate change expert was called Tim. Armed with his ability to read the future, Tim predicted that any dry area of the Murray-Darling system was “an indication of what’s coming”, and that “what Australia is experiencing here now” would eventually be experienced by “hundreds of millions of people around the world”.

Simon nodded his moustache sagely but didn’t once ask whether the flourishing wine industry was not part of what Australia is experiencing here now. Nor did he ask whether, in view of climate change, the wine industry was doomed. It was then that the big idea hit me. Why hadn’t he asked the wine grower? It would have been easy to frame the question, perhaps along the lines of: “In view of what is happening to the planet, have you any plans for selling all this colossal acreage of silver metal for scrap?”

It would have been worth asking the wine grower because his whole way of life depends on what he thinks about the water supply, whereas, with Tim, nothing depends on what he thinks about the water supply except his next research grant and his prospects of getting on screen with the visiting TV presenter so that they can shoot off their mouths together. And at that point I started thinking about all those BBC environment and nature programmes from the immediate past that might just turn out, in retrospect, to have been souping up their science with science fiction.

Read all Clive James at The Daily Telegraph

So there you have it. Genuine environmental research that challenges the official line that climate change is man made and only punitive taxes on everything, leading to the enslavement of entire populations can avert it. Droughts are caused by climate change – they have nothing to do with draining natural aquifers and other water resources for industrial and domestic water supplies, hurricanes are caused by climate change and climate changes is happening faster than even the most dramatic computer models predicted in spite of the fact that we have had less hurricanes in the past few years than before climate change scaremongering became profitable.

Sea ice is melting faster than ever as is proved by the norther sea ice extent increasing more last year than in any previous year. And antarctic ice is melting so fast that a scientific research ship sent to measure how much ice had disappeared in the southern ocean got stuck in ice which would not have been there at the height of an antarctic summer but for global warming.

Anyone who previously though science was about studying things carefully to gain knowledge can be disabused of such a ridiculous notion. science is about corporate profits and political power. QED.

Climate Scientist’s Failed Law Suit Exposes His Fake Science

After so many acrimonious arguments with so many acrimonious people about the fake science that the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming scare was just a scam to justify carbon taxes, it’s greatly amusing to see that the phoney scientist who led the whole fraud has been beaten to death with his own hockey stick – remember the notorious hockey stick graph that omitted and data that did not fit the answer Mann, his cronies and paymasters wanted. Well when people pointed out this very obvious manipulation of data, Mann screamed, “You’re not scientists, you don’t understand how science works.”

Unfortunately many of us do and some people called Mann’s bluff by yelling back, “You’re a cheat, fraud, and data faker, sue us if you dare.”

Mann sued and …

Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse

Mike Mann mugshot - he could be arrested for fraud
Prof Mike Mann mugshot – he could be arrested for fraud

Here are a couple of samples from Principia Scientifica’s reporting of the case (linked in the headline):

Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.

Buoyed by Dr Ball’s successes, journalist and free-speech defender, Mark Steyn has promptly decided to likewise countersue Michael Mann for $10 million in response to a similar SLAPP suit filed by the litigious professor from Penn. State University against not just Steyn, but also the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg. Ball’s countersuit against Mann seeks “exemplary and punitive damages. ” Bishop Hill blog is running extracts of Steyn’s counterclaim, plus link.

AND

The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State.” In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science (my emphasis – great catchphrase).

I have followed this case and it’s impossible to have any sympathy for Mann, he was advised by several lawyers who refused to represent him that if we has not prepared to reveal his data he could not possibly wing the case. In the end Mann and the law firm that did eventually take him on were running round like headless chickens trying to negotiate an out of courts settlement to save Mann’s arse.

It’s funny really but somehow I think the Warmageddonist cult will find a way to pretend it never happened.

RELATED POSTS:
Population Is The New Climate Change
Major Disaster Neeeded To Save The New World Order? What!

Not like a bat out of hell. Songs to drive safely by.

In yet another scientific research project aimed at proving science is a career for tossers who like to have lots of time on their hands and do not have enough imagination to fill it intelligently, a bunch of scientists have been researching which songs are the safest to drive to.

Each of the songs in the top ten have an optimum tempo of a song for safe driving, mimicking the human heartbeat at around 60 to 80 beats per minute.

Among the top ten safest songs to drive to are Come Away With Me by Norah Jones, I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing by Aerosmith and Tiny Dancer by Elton John. Anyone who would listen to that crap would never dare risk going above 30 mph of course so we must assume the science did not extend to looking at the risk of being rear ended by Jeremy Clarkson. Actually I wouldn’t mind read ending Norah Jones myself.

The Scientist by Coldplay and Justin Timberlake’s Cry Me a River also appeared in the top 10. A song called The Scientist? And it’s by Coldplay. What kind of driver would listen to that? They don’t sell Ladas in this country any more do they? Morris Minor drivers maybe? Tofu noshing G Wiz drivers?

The study, conducted at London Metropolitan University, also revealed the type of songs that cause motorists to drive dangerously.

Now this is what really pisses me off about scientists. FFS why do they insist on trying tell us what we already know and then getting it wrong.

The songs most likely to result in a write off, as any fule kno, are:

Bat Out Of Hell – Meat Loaf,
Paranoid – Black Sabbath,
Born To Run – Bruce Springsteen,

none of which were named by the study.

Having said that, I’ve always like to get my wellie down to O Fortuna from Carmina Burania.