- I source checked It seems to me that and it's American counterpart "New Economics Institute" are probably fronts from some "lefty" organisation luring people in with ideas which seem NICE : green, friendly, simple etc

The E.F. Schumacher Society is a left-wing, anti-capitalist advocacy group that radically exploits the cause of environmental sustainability to advance a decidedly socialist agenda. Recently, it changed its name to the New Economics Institute.
- One of its leaders, Gar Alperovitz, author of "America Beyond Capitalism," has outlined his vision of the new-economy movement, "one that is based on rethinking the nature of ownership and the growth paradigm that guides conventional policies." In his judgment, "new-economy efforts will ultimately pose much more radical systemic challenges than many have contemplated."

- he adds if all businesses were organized as non-profits, how would liberals collect the corporate income tax?

- His radio show

- This is called watermelons - ie the extreme left organistation putting on a green jacket to achieve it's objectives.

- However Britain is after 1000 years still a colony of the Normans with descendents of the Norman nobles still being in control of a sizeable proportion of the money and land.

- From infowars.wikia.com
- In 2003 Ruut Veenhoven and Michael Hagerty published a new analysis based on including various sources of data, and their conclusion was that there is no paradox and countries get indeed happier with increasing income. In his reply Easterlin maintained his position, pointing that the critics were using inadequate data (ref) In 2008, economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson, both of the University of Pennsylvania, published a paper where they reassessed the Easterlin paradox using new time-series data. They conclude like Veenhoven et al. that, contrary to Easterlin's claim, increases in absolute income are clearly linked to increased self-reported happiness, for both individual people and whole countries (ref)

- One of the pioneers of positive psychology, Professor Martin Seligman insists he is not recanting the doctrine which has made him a bestselling author and world-renowned expert on optimism but just that we should be focusing less on people's happiness and more on their ability to "flourish". He said he was naive in the past to think wellbeing was based only on mood.

"The word 'happiness' always bothered me, partly because it was scientifically unwieldy and meant a lot of different things to different people, and also because it's subjective," said Seligman, the director of the Positive Psychology Centre at the University of Pennsylvania. [1]

- In response to Time mag article

- Interesting, but by no means comprehensive. We have to take it very seriously e.g. the antivaccine "body count" is 866 for the last 4.5 years.

- True the scientific process functions largely well in many countries and science saves billions of life days, some thousands life days are lost due to bad science fanned by a media which is too lazy about fact checking. And there are issues with drug company trials which publish favourable studies, but cabinet the unfavourable. However in many other countries large numbers of killer pseudosciences are accepted. (listed on whatstheharm.net)

- We have a duty to spread good science education to the world so people understand that there cannot be proper reasoning without skepticism.

- Expectation Bias : People stuck in a channel like Korean dog cloner Hwang Woo-suk trying to live up to patriotic expectation resorted to faking stem cell research.

- Grant Bias : science is supposed to be independent of funding, but there do seem to be scientists conducting research with one eye on where their next grant is coming from. This perhaps breeds a culture of come up with the hypothesis and then do research than confirms it. Perhaps psychology is riddled with that systematic bias over the last 15 years when Dutch psychological researcher Diederik Stapel came up with results which were nice politically correct people accepted them readily.

- Other Systematic Biases : As well as the systematic bias with the pharmaceutical testing industry there are the research labs attached to PR agencies that produce those padding "a new study says" stories for lazy news organisation

- The Good News : Understanding of the charlatans techniques are beginning to permeate into the minds of the public so when those reports come on the radio with "a new study says..." there are increasing numbers of people at home spotting the errors : "sample size is too small" ,"confirmation bias", "confusing mean with median", "sidestepped peer review and gone straight to the media" etc. show less

- Dr. Roger Poisson skewed breast cancer data by getting his own patients into test on bogus profile data
- The “Baltimore Case” faking turned out to be paperwork errors, pardoned
- Charles Dawson “Piltdown man” shows

- More than one in 10 British-based scientists or doctors have witnessed colleagues intentionally altering or fabricating data during their research, according to a survey by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on Thursday

- excellent graphic from Clinical Psychology mag

more useless inventions - "count on it stickers" - special label sticker for food ...you could just use a pen