Revealing Corrupt Science. I spent a lifetime uncovering information science hides for centuries. My approach to science is revealing, to the point and new. It is your choice, which you wish to read to get the same ideas about a new approach to stars, galaxies and the Universe. Read how the cosmos works when using the formula Kepler gave us. In these books I make a financially rewarding offer of investment to prospective investors. From where I stand my work is too big or I am too small to bring about the awareness I have to provoke to allow change in science to come about. I need your help to get my work advertised so that people can see what my work entails. In this there are 4 identical books namely: To Inform; To Reveal and To Expose and Uncovering. The 1 is better developed than the other or the 1 is less informing than the other. The page numbers will tell which is which. Reading which one is your choice because we all can cope with different volumes of information and divulge more or less facts given as new information.

Science and technology are embedded in virtually every aspect of modern life. As a result, people face an increasing need to integrate information from science with their personal values and other considerations as they make important life decisions about medical care, the safety of foods, what to do about climate change, and many other issues. Communicating science effectively, however, is a complex task and an acquired skill. Moreover, the approaches to communicating science that will be most effective for specific audiences and circumstances are not obvious. Fortunately, there is an expanding science base from diverse disciplines that can support science communicators in making these determinations. Communicating Science Effectively offers a research agenda for science communicators and researchers seeking to apply this research and fill gaps in knowledge about how to communicate effectively about science, focusing in particular on issues that are contentious in the public sphere. To inform this research agenda, this publication identifies important influences â€" psychological, economic, political, social, cultural, and media-related â€" on how science related to such issues is understood, perceived, and used.

Documents the bizarre 1989 episode of 2 scientists who announced they had created a sustained nuclear-fusion reaction at room temperature & the ensuing scandal.

Dr. Tim Ball exposes the malicious misuse of climate science as it was distorted by dishonest brokers to advance the political aspirations of the progressive left.

Americans have long been suspicious of experts and elites. This new history explains why so many have believed that science has the power to corrupt American culture. Americans today are often skeptical of scientific authority. Many conservatives dismiss climate change and Darwinism as liberal fictions, arguing that “tenured radicals” have coopted the sciences and other disciplines. Some progressives, especially in the universities, worry that science’s celebration of objectivity and neutrality masks its attachment to Eurocentric and patriarchal values. As we grapple with the implications of climate change and revolutions in fields from biotechnology to robotics to computing, it is crucial to understand how scientific authority functions—and where it has run up against political and cultural barriers. Science under Fire reconstructs a century of battles over the cultural implications of science in the United States. Andrew Jewett reveals a persistent current of criticism which maintains that scientists have injected faulty social philosophies into the nation’s bloodstream under the cover of neutrality. This charge of corruption has taken many forms and appeared among critics with a wide range of social, political, and theological views, but common to all is the argument that an ideologically compromised science has produced an array of social ills. Jewett shows that this suspicion of science has been a major force in American politics and culture by tracking its development, varied expressions, and potent consequences since the 1920s. Looking at today’s battles over science, Jewett argues that citizens and leaders must steer a course between, on the one hand, the naïve image of science as a pristine, value-neutral form of knowledge, and, on the other, the assumption that scientists’ claims are merely ideologies masquerading as truths.

Advance praise for Philip Plait s Bad Astronomy "Bad Astronomy is just plain good! Philip Plait clears up everymisconception on astronomy and space you never knew you sufferedfrom." --Stephen Maran, Author of Astronomy for Dummies and editorof The Astronomy and Astrophysics Encyclopedia "Thank the cosmos for the bundle of star stuff named Philip Plait,who is the world s leading consumer advocate for quality science inspace and on Earth. This important contribution to science willrest firmly on my reference library shelf, ready for easy accessthe next time an astrologer calls." --Dr. Michael Shermer,Publisher of Skeptic magazine, monthly columnist for ScientificAmerican, and author of The Borderlands of Science "Philip Plait has given us a readable, erudite, informative,useful, and entertaining book. Bad Astronomy is Good Science. Verygood science..." --James "The Amazing" Randi, President, JamesRandi Educational Foundation, and author of An Encyclopedia ofClaims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural "Bad Astronomy is a fun read. Plait is wonderfully witty andeducational as he debunks the myths, legends, and 'conspiraciesthat abound in our society. 'The Truth Is Out There' and it's inthis book. I loved it!" --Mike Mullane, Space Shuttle astronaut andauthor of Do Your Ears Pop in Space?

All the science in Breaking Bad—from explosive experiments to acid-based evidence destruction—explained and analyzed for authenticity. Breaking Bad's (anti)hero Walter White (played by Emmy-winner Bryan Cranston) is a scientist, a high school chemistry teacher who displays a plaque that recognizes his “contributions to research awarded the Nobel Prize.” During the course of five seasons, Walt practices a lot of ad hoc chemistry—from experiments that explode to acid-based evidence destruction to an amazing repertoire of methodologies for illicit meth making. But how much of Walt's science is actually scientific? In The Science of “Breaking Bad,” Dave Trumbore and Donna Nelson explain, analyze, and evaluate the show's portrayal of science, from the pilot's opening credits to the final moments of the series finale. The intent is not, of course, to provide a how-to manual for wannabe meth moguls but to decode the show's most head-turning, jaw-dropping moments. Trumbore, a science and entertainment writer, and Nelson, a professor of chemistry and Breaking Bad's science advisor, are the perfect scientific tour guides. Trumbore and Nelson cover the show's portrayal of chemistry, biology, physics, and subdivisions of each area including toxicology and electromagnetism. They explain, among other things, Walt's DIY battery making; the dangers of Mylar balloons; the feasibility of using hydrofluoric acid to dissolve bodies; and the chemistry of methamphetamine itself. Nelson adds interesting behind-the-scenes anecdotes and describes her work with the show's creator and writers. Marius Stan, who played Bogdan on the show (and who is a PhD scientist himself) contributes a foreword. This is a book for every science buff who appreciated the show's scientific moments and every diehard Breaking Bad fan who wondered just how smart Walt really was.

Drawing on startling new evidence from the mapping of the genome, an explosive new account of the genetic basis of race and its role in the human story Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another. For this understandable reason, the idea has been banished from polite academic conversation. Arguing that race is more than just a social construct can get a scholar run out of town, or at least off campus, on a rail. Human evolution, the consensus view insists, ended in prehistory. Inconveniently, as Nicholas Wade argues in A Troublesome Inheritance, the consensus view cannot be right. And in fact, we know that populations have changed in the past few thousand years—to be lactose tolerant, for example, and to survive at high altitudes. Race is not a bright-line distinction; by definition it means that the more human populations are kept apart, the more they evolve their own distinct traits under the selective pressure known as Darwinian evolution. For many thousands of years, most human populations stayed where they were and grew distinct, not just in outward appearance but in deeper senses as well. Wade, the longtime journalist covering genetic advances for The New York Times, draws widely on the work of scientists who have made crucial breakthroughs in establishing the reality of recent human evolution. The most provocative claims in this book involve the genetic basis of human social habits. What we might call middle-class social traits—thrift, docility, nonviolence—have been slowly but surely inculcated genetically within agrarian societies, Wade argues. These “values” obviously had a strong cultural component, but Wade points to evidence that agrarian societies evolved away from hunter-gatherer societies in some crucial respects. Also controversial are his findings regarding the genetic basis of traits we associate with intelligence, such as literacy and numeracy, in certain ethnic populations, including the Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews. Wade believes deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples. He also believes that science is best served by pursuing the truth without fear, and if his mission to arrive at a coherent summa of what the new genetic science does and does not tell us about race and human history leads straight into a minefield, then so be it. This will not be the last word on the subject, but it will begin a powerful and overdue conversation.