Climate Change - a poll

[Guest BlueBrett]

15 hours ago, leicsmac said:

A reminder:

 

"Lynas et al. (2021) took 88,125 papers published between 2012-2020, randomly subset the dataset to 2,718 papers (a representative sample; see note), and examined those abstracts for stated agreement or disagreement with anthropogenic climate change. Of these, only four rejected anthropogenic climate change. That’s a 99.85% consensus of evidence. Similarly, if we apply the Cook et al. criteria, we get a 99.53% consensus of evidence. 

 

These surveys of the literature are extremely compelling evidence that a consensus has been reached and the topic is “settled.” If there was actually serious debate, if actual evidence existed discrediting anthropogenic global warming, we would see that in the literature. We would see numerous studies publishing evidence against anthropogenic climate change, but we don’t see those studies because that evidence doesn’t exist. All of the available data very clearly shows that we are causing climate change. The scientific consensus on this topic is truly overwhelming."

Ahhhh man you're still not getting it!!!

 

Listen......

 

Science guy is working on a project. Science guy needs money for said project. Science guy applies for funding. Funding prospectuses and track record make it clear they want to give money to projects related to clime change (because of the cascade of corporate ESG shite pressuring them and every other organisation on the planet and the fact that many of them are actually true believers indoctrinated since pre-kindergarten just like many people on here)

 

So science guy has a decision to make - submit regular proposal and most likely be denied funding, or fabricate some bullshit link between what he is working on and climate change to increase his chances of getting the money exponentially. 99 Science guys out of 100 choose option B. Anything and everything gets tenuously linked to climate change in pursuit of the money.

 

They carry out their research which in many cases has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. Report time - "oh shit remember we had to make up that bs about a relationship to climate change to get the money, right quick chuck a couple variables on a graph and write some vague comment about how this may in some contexts possibly occasionally sometimes according to certain interpretations be linked to climate change.

 

Repeat this sequence of events at every prominent research institution for multiple decades and guess what, you'll never believe it, you end up being able to talk about a 99 percent consensus THAT DOES NOT EXIST. There are multiple other mechanisms that also contribute to the false impression of a consensus. If you think about it I'm sure many of them will occur to you.

 

When you talk about this 99% consensus it is about as meaningful as saying that there was a 99% consensus amongst doctors on Youtube about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and amongst scientists that it was impossible the virus came from a lab  IT MEANS NOTHING. LESS THAN NOTHING IN FACT. THE LESS DISSENSION THEY ALLOW ON A TOPIC, THE GREATER THE CHANCE ITS ALL COMPLETE AND UTTER HORSESHIT.

 

Man seriously, have you not seen enough evidence over the last 20 years or so that the louder they cry "conspiracy theory" the closer you should pay attention?

 

 

This is how I know you haven't really looked into this at all. The suggestion that there is anything even approximating a consensus on climate change is absurd. You could find that out for yourself with just a couple hours of research. I'm not talking about fringe websites, I'm talking about professors at Harvard, MIT, Oxford and other world renowned institutions who are not just sceptical about the claims of the climate cult, but who straight up claim the whole thing is an enormous con. 

 

The IPCC has two distinct branches. There is the scientific branch and the political branch. If you actually read the reports you will see that THE SCIENCE IN THEIR OWN REPORTS DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE POLITICAL WING OF THE ORGANISATION. The language used by the scientists is immeasurably more conservative, they hedge virtually every claim they make. MANY OF THE MAIN DETRACTORS FROM THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE IPCC ARE THE ACTUAL SCIENTISTS WHO PRODUCED THE REPORTS FOR THEM!!! 

 

Looking at other relevant tangential disciplines, you wont find a single astrophysicist in the world who believes  any of this crap. They just don't get asked and they don't shout about it because they value their careers and understand that we are dealing with a religion here and rationality is out the window. You might get some disingenuous CIA asset like Neil DeGrasse Tyson to act as a mouthpiece for the cult but that's all you're gonna get from that serious community.

 

On top of all this there is significant evidence of widespread data tampering. 

 

Ever noticed how the  proposed solution to every single problem in the world is to surrender more liberties, give up autonomy over more aspects of our lives and centralise power in the hands of fewer and fewer people? Funny that, don't you think?

 

 

People are going to read this and laugh. Some will probably insult me. Very few will actually go away and look into "the science" for themselves, most will simply continue to dutifully receive and relay the dogma handed down to them through the MSM and the ideologically and financially captured portion of academia. It is not easy to deprogram the victims of psyops, especially when its so pervasive and has been force fed to them since they were in nappies. If I can help just one of you to begin to wake up I'll be happy enough. I seriously do encourage all of you to set aside a few hours and look into this properly.

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

Ahhhh man you're still not getting it!!!

 

Listen......

 

Science guy is working on a project. Science guy needs money for said project. Science guy applies for funding. Funding prospectuses and track record make it clear they want to give money to projects related to clime change (because of the cascade of corporate ESG shite pressuring them and every other organisation on the planet and the fact that many of them are actually true believers indoctrinated since pre-kindergarten just like many people on here)

 

So science guy has a decision to make - submit regular proposal and most likely be denied funding, or fabricate some bullshit link between what he is working on and climate change to increase his chances of getting the money exponentially. 99 Science guys out of 100 choose option B. Anything and everything gets tenuously linked to climate change in pursuit of the money.

 

They carry out their research which in many cases has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. Report time - "oh shit remember we had to make up that bs about a relationship to climate change to get the money, right quick chuck a couple variables on a graph and write some vague comment about how this may in some contexts possibly occasionally sometimes according to certain interpretations be linked to climate change.

 

Repeat this sequence of events at every prominent research institution for multiple decades and guess what, you'll never believe it, you end up being able to talk about a 99 percent consensus THAT DOES NOT EXIST. There are multiple other mechanisms that also contribute to the false impression of a consensus. If you think about it I'm sure many of them will occur to you.

 

When you talk about this 99% consensus it is about as meaningful as saying that there was a 99% consensus amongst doctors on Youtube about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and amongst scientists that it was impossible the virus came from a lab  IT MEANS NOTHING. LESS THAN NOTHING IN FACT. THE LESS DISSENSION THEY ALLOW ON A TOPIC, THE GREATER THE CHANCE ITS ALL COMPLETE AND UTTER HORSESHIT.

 

Man seriously, have you not seen enough evidence over the last 20 years or so that the louder they cry "conspiracy theory" the closer you should pay attention?

 

 

This is how I know you haven't really looked into this at all. The suggestion that there is anything even approximating a consensus on climate change is absurd. You could find that out for yourself with just a couple hours of research. I'm not talking about fringe websites, I'm talking about professors at Harvard, MIT, Oxford and other world renowned institutions who are not just sceptical about the claims of the climate cult, but who straight up claim the whole thing is an enormous con. 

 

The IPCC has two distinct branches. There is the scientific branch and the political branch. If you actually read the reports you will see that THE SCIENCE IN THEIR OWN REPORTS DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE POLITICAL WING OF THE ORGANISATION. The language used by the scientists is immeasurably more conservative, they hedge virtually every claim they make. MANY OF THE MAIN DETRACTORS FROM THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE IPCC ARE THE ACTUAL SCIENTISTS WHO PRODUCED THE REPORTS FOR THEM!!! 

 

Looking at other relevant tangential disciplines, you wont find a single astrophysicist in the world who believes  any of this crap. They just don't get asked and they don't shout about it because they value their careers and understand that we are dealing with a religion here and rationality is out the window. You might get some disingenuous CIA asset like Neil DeGrasse Tyson to act as a mouthpiece for the cult but that's all you're gonna get from that serious community.

 

On top of all this there is significant evidence of widespread data tampering. 

 

Ever noticed how the  proposed solution to every single problem in the world is to surrender more liberties, give up autonomy over more aspects of our lives and centralise power in the hands of fewer and fewer people? Funny that, don't you think?

 

 

People are going to read this and laugh. Some will probably insult me. Very few will actually go away and look into "the science" for themselves, most will simply continue to dutifully receive and relay the dogma handed down to them through the MSM and the ideologically and financially captured portion of academia. It is not easy to deprogram the victims of psyops, especially when its so pervasive and has been force fed to them since they were in nappies. If I can help just one of you to begin to wake up I'll be happy enough. I seriously do encourage all of you to set aside a few hours and look into this properly.

 

 

 

Fair enough. Three points:

 

- Firstly, if you believe that pretty much the entire climate science corps is either deliberately corrupt or is being forced into corruption (you tried to dance around that the last time we discussed this by pointing out "that's not what I said", but the inference that they are corrupt is absolutely clear here), then by all means, prove it. Look at scientific research history; mavericks that buck the system don't get silenced in the end, they get Nobel Prizes - but only if they can prove what they do is convincing enough. Science is self-correcting, there's a plethora of examples of this, and despite political influences, the scientific method and empiricism always comes through in the end. I'm not interested in rhetoric and innuendo, and nor should anyone else - I'm interested in empirical, solid, proof.   Hitchens Razor applies, and everyone else should use that in this case too.

 

- Secondly, any conspiracy relies on the pork - who benefits? I mean, you could make an argument for the "elites" (whatever that means) making money and power from manipulating something like this, but what's in it for Professor Jackson Pollock at the University of Hearthshire who really just wants to help people? I honestly don't get the need to paint an entire profession as nefarious when there's really no good reason for them to be so, and especially considering what we're dealing with is something for which the consequences (not the causes) are beyond human control anyway. (Much like Covid, the Earth and the fundamental laws of the universe don't give a shit about what we jabber about among ourselves.)

 

- Finally, what if you're wrong? Consider this: If I'm wrong and you're right, and we keep on the way we're going, then the worst-case scenario is probably something out of 1984. Which is nasty. But if you're wrong and I'm right and we abandon the pathway we're taking (or even don't commit to it enough), the worst case scenario is the downfall of human civilisation. Which is worse, exactly, dystopia or death? IMO, anyone responding with the latter fails to grasp what it really means.

Edited 18 January by leicsmac

[Guest David Oldfields Gate]

46 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

Ahhhh man you're still not getting it!!!

 

Listen......

 

Science guy is working on a project. Science guy needs money for said project. Science guy applies for funding. Funding prospectuses and track record make it clear they want to give money to projects related to clime change (because of the cascade of corporate ESG shite pressuring them and every other organisation on the planet and the fact that many of them are actually true believers indoctrinated since pre-kindergarten just like many people on here)

 

So science guy has a decision to make - submit regular proposal and most likely be denied funding, or fabricate some bullshit link between what he is working on and climate change to increase his chances of getting the money exponentially. 99 Science guys out of 100 choose option B. Anything and everything gets tenuously linked to climate change in pursuit of the money.

 

They carry out their research which in many cases has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. Report time - "oh shit remember we had to make up that bs about a relationship to climate change to get the money, right quick chuck a couple variables on a graph and write some vague comment about how this may in some contexts possibly occasionally sometimes according to certain interpretations be linked to climate change.

 

Repeat this sequence of events at every prominent research institution for multiple decades and guess what, you'll never believe it, you end up being able to talk about a 99 percent consensus THAT DOES NOT EXIST. There are multiple other mechanisms that also contribute to the false impression of a consensus. If you think about it I'm sure many of them will occur to you.

 

When you talk about this 99% consensus it is about as meaningful as saying that there was a 99% consensus amongst doctors on Youtube about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and amongst scientists that it was impossible the virus came from a lab  IT MEANS NOTHING. LESS THAN NOTHING IN FACT. THE LESS DISSENSION THEY ALLOW ON A TOPIC, THE GREATER THE CHANCE ITS ALL COMPLETE AND UTTER HORSESHIT.

 

Man seriously, have you not seen enough evidence over the last 20 years or so that the louder they cry "conspiracy theory" the closer you should pay attention?

 

 

This is how I know you haven't really looked into this at all. The suggestion that there is anything even approximating a consensus on climate change is absurd. You could find that out for yourself with just a couple hours of research. I'm not talking about fringe websites, I'm talking about professors at Harvard, MIT, Oxford and other world renowned institutions who are not just sceptical about the claims of the climate cult, but who straight up claim the whole thing is an enormous con. 

 

The IPCC has two distinct branches. There is the scientific branch and the political branch. If you actually read the reports you will see that THE SCIENCE IN THEIR OWN REPORTS DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE POLITICAL WING OF THE ORGANISATION. The language used by the scientists is immeasurably more conservative, they hedge virtually every claim they make. MANY OF THE MAIN DETRACTORS FROM THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE IPCC ARE THE ACTUAL SCIENTISTS WHO PRODUCED THE REPORTS FOR THEM!!! 

 

Looking at other relevant tangential disciplines, you wont find a single astrophysicist in the world who believes  any of this crap. They just don't get asked and they don't shout about it because they value their careers and understand that we are dealing with a religion here and rationality is out the window. You might get some disingenuous CIA asset like Neil DeGrasse Tyson to act as a mouthpiece for the cult but that's all you're gonna get from that serious community.

 

On top of all this there is significant evidence of widespread data tampering. 

 

Ever noticed how the  proposed solution to every single problem in the world is to surrender more liberties, give up autonomy over more aspects of our lives and centralise power in the hands of fewer and fewer people? Funny that, don't you think?

 

 

People are going to read this and laugh. Some will probably insult me. Very few will actually go away and look into "the science" for themselves, most will simply continue to dutifully receive and relay the dogma handed down to them through the MSM and the ideologically and financially captured portion of academia. It is not easy to deprogram the victims of psyops, especially when its so pervasive and has been force fed to them since they were in nappies. If I can help just one of you to begin to wake up I'll be happy enough. I seriously do encourage all of you to set aside a few hours and look into this properly.

 

 

 

Without saying too much about where or what I do and who for. There is zero chance of capital funding for anything, unless it meets the criteria of contributing to climate change mitigation. So all funding papers have to have that angle, even if it's say money to renovate a toilet block or replace a wiring system. Just for interest.

[Guest BlueBrett]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough. Three points:

 

- Firstly, if you believe that pretty much the entire climate science corps is either deliberately corrupt or is being forced into corruption (you tried to dance around that the last time we discussed this by pointing out "that's not what I said", but the inference that they are corrupt is absolutely clear here), then by all means, prove it. Look at scientific research history; mavericks that buck the system don't get silenced in the end, they get Nobel Prizes - but only if they can prove what they do is convincing enough. Science is self-correcting, there's a plethora of examples of this, and despite political influences, the scientific method and empiricism always comes through in the end. I'm not interested in rhetoric and innuendo, and nor should anyone else - I'm interested in empirical, solid, proof.   Hitchens Razor applies, and everyone else should use that in this case too.

 

- Secondly, any conspiracy relies on the pork - who benefits? I mean, you could make an argument for the "elites" (whatever that means) making money and power from manipulating something like this, but what's in it for Professor Jackson Pollock at the University of Hearthshire who really just wants to help people? I honestly don't get the need to paint an entire profession as nefarious when there's really no good reason for them to be so, and especially considering what we're dealing with is something for which the consequences (not the causes) are beyond human control anyway. (Much like Covid, the Earth and the fundamental laws of the universe don't give a shit about what we jabber about among ourselves.)

 

- Finally, what if you're wrong? Consider this: If I'm wrong and you're right, and we keep on the way we're going, then the worst-case scenario is probably something out of 1984. Which is nasty. But if you're wrong and I'm right and we abandon the pathway we're taking (or even don't commit to it enough), the worst case scenario is the downfall of human civilisation. Which is worse, exactly, dystopia or death? IMO, anyone responding with the latter fails to grasp what it really means.

There is undoubtedly corruption but I don't rely on that as my primary mechanism. Most of the bias within the scientific community is produced by incentive problems. Individual scientists and institutions as a whole are obviously guided by where the money is. There's money in cancer research so a huge proportion of medical scientists go into oncology. The climate change industry (because is it an industry as well as a cult) works the same way. There are financial incentives to link your research (whatever it is) to climate change and huge social/reputational disincentives to saying anything contradictory. 

 

The idea that Mavericks get Nobel Prizes is crazy. Mavericks get shunned. Sure there are a handful of examples of the lone genius forcing everyone to pay attention through his sheer brilliance - but far more often those who refuse to toe the party line are simply ostracised, defunded and discredited. 

 

I'd have thought it's fairy clear who benefits. The same people who always benefit. The global elite want to control us and they are becoming increasingly desperate because people around the world are beginning to wake up. I'm sure you've heard all the evil quotes that come out of the WEF every year. Do you think they're joking or something? The elites despise and fear us. They want the vast majority of us gone. 

 

Climate change is such a perfect psyop for them. It's attractive because it allows mediocre people to feel an undeserved sense of moral superiority. It gives lost young people the illusion of a purpose. It's scary and it's existential so it can be used to justify almost anything. If i was to say I'd like to kill 7 billion people you would rightly call me evil. If i want to kill 7 billion people but frame it in terms of "the planet can only support 1 billion humans, we need population reduction to save the planet, long live the goddess Gaia and her glorious lieutenant Bill Gates", then all of a sudden I'm just an environmentalist?  

 

You've heard them talk about 15 minute cities, banning private vehicle ownership, CBDCs, carbon allowances, consumption monitoring, social credit scores etc etc etc. Climate change is the delivery mechanism for all of these sick dystopian measures. I'm genuinely really concerned about it. Once their panopticon society is complete it will be virtually impossible for us to break out of it.

 

Authoritarianism really is on the rise but under a different guise than a lot of people seem to realise. Take a dispassionate look at how the Democrats are operating in the US. Think about the extent to which the MSM and the government collude. It is bad enough here but in America they don't even try to hide it any more. It is garish and in your face. They know we know what they are and they don't care. Tells me something big is coming. 

 

I'm not sure I share your preference for dystopia over death. Things can get really really bad as we saw throughout the 20th century. Seems like a lot of people have forgotten all about that but I'm afraid we will all be reminded soon enough.

[Guest BlueBrett]

19 minutes ago, David Oldfields Gate said:

Without saying too much about where or what I do and who for. There is zero chance of capital funding for anything, unless it meets the criteria of contributing to climate change mitigation. So all funding papers have to have that angle, even if it's say money to renovate a toilet block or replace a wiring system. Just for interest.

Thank you!!!

 

For those who haven't woken up yet....there will be a DEI checklist on there too! 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

There is undoubtedly corruption but I don't rely on that as my primary mechanism. Most of the bias within the scientific community is produced by incentive problems. Individual scientists and institutions as a whole are obviously guided by where the money is. There's money in cancer research so a huge proportion of medical scientists go into oncology. The climate change industry (because is it an industry as well as a cult) works the same way. There are financial incentives to link your research (whatever it is) to climate change and huge social/reputational disincentives to saying anything contradictory. 

 

.

Please don't sugarcoat - be honest. Being guided by money and/or power over truth = corrupt. The implication here is that the climate science corps is guided by the money at the expense of actual empirical fact, therefore they are corrupt. There is nowhere near any kind of ironclad widespread proof for this.

 

6 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

 

The idea that Mavericks get Nobel Prizes is crazy. Mavericks get shunned. Sure there are a handful of examples of the lone genius forcing everyone to pay attention through his sheer brilliance - but far more often those who refuse to toe the party line are simply ostracised, defunded and discredited. 

 

Not when they are proven to be right by events and/or repeatable empiricism. Again, the scientific method doesn't care about politics, it makes itself known in time no matter what.

 

7 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

I'd have thought it's fairy clear who benefits. The same people who always benefit. The global elite want to control us and they are becoming increasingly desperate because people around the world are beginning to wake up. I'm sure you've heard all the evil quotes that come out of the WEF every year. Do you think they're joking or something? The elites despise and fear us. They want the vast majority of us gone. 

 

Climate change is such a perfect psyop for them. It's attractive because it allows mediocre people to feel an undeserved sense of moral superiority. It gives lost young people the illusion of a purpose. It's scary and it's existential so it can be used to justify almost anything. If i was to say I'd like to kill 7 billion people you would rightly call me evil. If i want to kill 7 billion people but frame it in terms of "the planet can only support 1 billion humans, we need population reduction to save the planet, long live the goddess Gaia and her glorious lieutenant Bill Gates", then all of a sudden I'm just an environmentalist?  

 

You've heard them talk about 15 minute cities, banning private vehicle ownership, CBDCs, carbon allowances, consumption monitoring, social credit scores etc etc etc. Climate change is the delivery mechanism for all of these sick dystopian measures. I'm genuinely really concerned about it. Once their panopticon society is complete it will be virtually impossible for us to break out of it.

 

How exactly are the current measures being taken going to bring about this population crash that the "elites" desire? If anything, the opposite is true; not taking these measures will result in increased global average temperatures, which will then result in vastly increased incidences of drought and famine followed by hugely increased global conflict over much more limited resources as a result. The Earth can easily support the current population and likely more besides, the issue is one of logistics. Those wanting to "reduce" population, on either side of the debate, are as insane as each other.

 

13 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

Authoritarianism really is on the rise but under a different guise than a lot of people seem to realise. Take a dispassionate look at how the Democrats are operating in the US. Think about the extent to which the MSM and the government collude. It is bad enough here but in America they don't even try to hide it any more. It is garish and in your face. They know we know what they are and they don't care. Tells me something big is coming. 

 

I'm not sure I share your preference for dystopia over death. Things can get really really bad as we saw throughout the 20th century. Seems like a lot of people have forgotten all about that but I'm afraid we will all be reminded soon enough.

You're right to be afraid of authoritarianism. You should be afraid of societal collapse more. Because that's not Big Brother controlling everyone through "15-minute cities", that's Immortan Joe enslaving, killing, raping and pillaging as he feels like in a world where the only rule is the rule of the biggest and toughest person. And that road leads directly on to extinction, not far further along the line. Tell me exactly which one of those is preferable.

 

As bad as the 20th Century was, it carried through it the seed of hope that things would and can change to a freer, more just society - and that will be there as long as such civilisation exists. Take that civilisation away, however, and the only freedom there is is the freedom to enslave or be enslaved. To kill or be killed.

 

Yeah, fight back against measures that take away freedoms where you can. But on some issues that involve consequences that cannot be reasoned with, bought, bullied or intimidated, the choice is simple - our species overcomes united, or falls divided. This is one of those issues.

[Guest BlueBrett]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Please don't sugarcoat - be honest. Being guided by money and/or power over truth = corrupt. The implication here is that the climate science corps is guided by the money at the expense of actual empirical fact, therefore they are corrupt. There is nowhere near any kind of ironclad widespread proof for this.

I wouldn't call it corrupt. It's just the way the system works. I don't think it's fair to hold individual scientists to such a high moral standard. They are just thinking "man i just want to get on with my work, how can i get funding?" i don't think it's indicative of hearts of darkness that many of them weigh it all  up and think "ah what's the big deal, let me just throw a bone to these climate lunatics and then I can get the resources i need for my research into this thing im passionate about and have spent half my life studying" That's only human. People make compromises like this all the time, every day. On an individual basis it's no big deal but when there are globalised incentive structures promoting the same line of thinking in every department in the world it obviously starts to skew things in a major way.

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Not when they are proven to be right by events and/or repeatable empiricism. Again, the scientific method doesn't care about politics, it makes itself known in time no matter what.

 

What would it take then to irrefutably disprove the climate change religion to the point that even it's most zealous adherents would accept they had been duped? I can't even imagine. People, especially the narcissistic mid-wit types that are attracted to "causes" like climate change, find it extremely difficult to admit they were wrong. Look at how everyone has reacted to all the Covid lies...it's like it never happened because people are embarrassed they were taken in so easily. How many people have come out and said "****! we really got pretty much everything completely wrong! sorry everybody"? ****ing nobody. All you get is a bunch of Statist apologists like Piers Morgan crying "b-b-b-but the science changed, THE SCIENCE CHANGED!!" No pal. You just got duped.

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

How exactly are the current measures being taken going to bring about this population crash that the "elites" desire? If anything, the opposite is true; not taking these measures will result in increased global average temperatures, which will then result in vastly increased incidences of drought and famine followed by hugely increased global conflict over much more limited resources as a result. The Earth can easily support the current population and likely more besides, the issue is one of logistics. Those wanting to "reduce" population, on either side of the debate, are as insane as each other.

Through a number of terrible mechanisms but primarily through reducing energy consumption. There will be artificial food and water shortages blamed on the weather (or Putin again probably) and they will continue to try and pit us against one another through all this pathological DEI stuff. I expect there will also be a hot war at some point - I believe this is the reason for the otherwise insane handling of migrants across Europe and the US Sothern Border. These globalists are going to need an army to fight their war for them. Don't know about you but I'm sure as hell not enlisting - so they're bringing in people who for 3 square meals, accommodation and an army pension will be willing to do the things we are not - whether that is go fight the Chinese in the Pacific or just suppression of the domestic population. They will also introduce pandemics and mass sterilisation programmes under the guise of vaccines. Conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy I know. 

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

You're right to be afraid of authoritarianism. You should be afraid of societal collapse more. Because that's not Big Brother controlling everyone through "15-minute cities", that's Immortan Joe enslaving, killing, raping and pillaging as he feels like in a world where the only rule is the rule of the biggest and toughest person. And that road leads directly on to extinction, not far further along the line. Tell me exactly which one of those is preferable.

 

As bad as the 20th Century was, it carried through it the seed of hope that things would and can change to a freer, more just society - and that will be there as long as such civilisation exists. Take that civilisation away, however, and the only freedom there is is the freedom to enslave or be enslaved. To kill or be killed.

 

Yeah, fight back against measures that take away freedoms where you can. But on some issues that involve consequences that cannot be reasoned with, bought, bullied or intimidated, the choice is simple - our species overcomes united, or falls divided. This is one of those issues.

I agree with pretty much all of this but derive a different conclusion from it. We are so vulnerable to solar storms, coronal mass ejections, comets, viruses, nukes, EMPs and so on and so on. The only thing that can save our civilization is massive unbridled innovation - all the "green" initiatives I have seen are diametrically opposed this. Onerous industrial regulations and attempts to coerce everyone on the planet into State approved patterns of behaviour are not going to lead to progress - how innovative was the Soviet Union? I think people are so complacent about this. It's like it doesn't occur to anyone that civilizations can actually regress as well as advance and it doesn't always take some crazy black swan event to cause it. More often than not it simply happens through incompetence, ignorance, moral bankruptcy and hubris - The cornerstones of the Climate change cult.

 

 

 

I know you think I'm crazy but I recognise that you are one of the few who actually does approach this kind of back and forth in good faith and that's why I'm happy to take the time to respond to you.

I invite you to consider a thought experiment:

 

We know "they" lie about many things right? Well I think there is one particular example that is highly instructive.

 

The food pyramid.

 

It has now been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that a giant malevolent conspiracy produced the original food pyramid. There is a lot to the story but essentially the sugar and grain industries bribed nutrition scientists at prominent institutions to make up lies about the harmfulness of saturated fat and the amount of starchy foods we should eat.

 

So in other words, "they" were willing to lie and compromise the health of hundreds of millions of people for decades just to sell more ****ing breakfast cereal. 

 

All this shit is documented fact.

 

If they are willing to lie on such a massive scale about something as fundamental, important and seemingly apolitical as what foods we should eat....If they are willing to jeopardise the health of hundreds of millions of people, promoting obesity, auto-immune diseases, shorter life-expectancy and a whole host of other really nasty outcomes just to make money....

 

What the hell makes you think they wouldn't lie about the weather to secure and consolidate dominion over the entire world? 

 

 

Edited 18 January by BlueBrett

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, BlueBrett said:

I wouldn't call it corrupt. It's just the way the system works. I don't think it's fair to hold individual scientists to such a high moral standard. They are just thinking "man i just want to get on with my work, how can i get funding?" i don't think it's indicative of hearts of darkness that many of them weigh it all  up and think "ah what's the big deal, let me just throw a bone to these climate lunatics and then I can get the resources i need for my research into this thing im passionate about and have spent half my life studying" That's only human. People make compromises like this all the time, every day. On an individual basis it's no big deal but when there are globalised incentive structures promoting the same line of thinking in every department in the world it obviously starts to skew things in a major way.

 

I'm sorry, but that still sounds like taking away agency from these often very smart, very decent people by saying they're all buying into a system that subverts scientific truth - when to uphold that same truth is the very reason many of them became scientists in the first place. It's unfair to have such a low opinion of the science corps without proof, IMO.

 

1 hour ago, BlueBrett said:

 

 

What would it take then to irrefutably disprove the climate change religion to the point that even it's most zealous adherents would accept they had been duped? I can't even imagine. People, especially the narcissistic mid-wit types that are attracted to "causes" like climate change, find it extremely difficult to admit they were wrong. Look at how everyone has reacted to all the Covid lies...it's like it never happened because people are embarrassed they were taken in so easily. How many people have come out and said "****! we really got pretty much everything completely wrong! sorry everybody"? ****ing nobody. All you get is a bunch of Statist apologists like Piers Morgan crying "b-b-b-but the science changed, THE SCIENCE CHANGED!!" No pal. You just got duped.

 

Science changes and progresses all the time - that's a feature, not a bug. If it didn't we'd still think in terms of the ether and four elements, rather than spacetime/quantum mechanics and the Periodic Table. Was the Millennium Bug suddenly no longer problematic because it was planned for and dealt with in good fashion? Survivorship bias - or an offshoot of it.

 

Of course it's difficult for anyone to admit they were wrong about something, but in the end physical, empirical method has the last word - as it has throughout history. And it will with this matter.

 

1 hour ago, BlueBrett said:

Through a number of terrible mechanisms but primarily through reducing energy consumption. There will be artificial food and water shortages blamed on the weather (or Putin again probably) and they will continue to try and pit us against one another through all this pathological DEI stuff. I expect there will also be a hot war at some point - I believe this is the reason for the otherwise insane handling of migrants across Europe and the US Sothern Border. These globalists are going to need an army to fight their war for them. Don't know about you but I'm sure as hell not enlisting - so they're bringing in people who for 3 square meals, accommodation and an army pension will be willing to do the things we are not - whether that is go fight the Chinese in the Pacific or just suppression of the domestic population. They will also introduce pandemics and mass sterilisation programmes under the guise of vaccines. Conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy I know.

 

There are already "artificial" food and water shortages caused by what some refer to as the "free market" and also through government intervention in places. Yeah, a future where that becomes a much more massive issue is one to be avoided, but one where we let emissions run amok and the global average temperature climbs into the roof is the much more likely way that happens. Nature is a much better killer than humans could ever be, that's why a single preventable disease killed more people in the 20th Century than all incidents of war in that same century put together.

 

And yeah, if the shit hits the fan for whatever reason I'm refusing the call too. But that war and that shortage of resources is much more likely to be naturally than artificially caused.

 

1 hour ago, BlueBrett said:

I agree with pretty much all of this but derive a different conclusion from it. We are so vulnerable to solar storms, coronal mass ejections, comets, viruses, nukes, EMPs and so on and so on. The only thing that can save our civilization is massive unbridled innovation - all the "green" initiatives I have seen are diametrically opposed this. Onerous industrial regulations and attempts to coerce everyone on the planet into State approved patterns of behaviour are not going to lead to progress - how innovative was the Soviet Union? I think people are so complacent about this. It's like it doesn't occur to anyone that civilizations can actually regress as well as advance and it doesn't always take some crazy black swan event to cause it. More often than not it simply happens through incompetence, ignorance, moral bankruptcy and hubris - The cornerstones of the Climate change cult.

 

 

Ask Sergei Korolev how much innovation he was able to do in the former USSR. He perhaps would have single-handedly beat the Americans to the Moon if he hadn't suffered awful misfortune on the operating table.

 

For what it's worth I agree that innovation has to be the cornerstone going forward, but in the way that you imagine it, it will be competitive, divided (in the way free market solutions often are, microcosms of evolution that they are) and I fear it will fail as a result (or at least, fail the vast majority of the human population). This is a massive task, a global one, and I'm sorry, but it does need unity to be successful - that is obvious to me. And especially when the consequences of something are beyond the line of sight spatially or temporally of the individual, they tend not to give a shit. That is a mistake - should civilisation be allowed to fall because of it, in the name of "freedom"?

 

NB. Interesting list of disasters there - I wrote a manuscript on extinction events a while back that included all of those and which I should really get round to editing.

 

1 hour ago, BlueBrett said:

I know you think I'm crazy but I recognise that you are one of the few who actually does approach this kind of back and forth in good faith and that's why I'm happy to take the time to respond to you.

 

I don't think that you're crazy at all. I would be a shit science communicator if I dismissed people as so, and I appreciate the time and the responses.

 

But...one of us is wrong about this matter.

 

I think that it is you.

 

I hope that it is me, because then we might have a better chance of revisiting this discussion in a few decades without hearing about the biggest humanitarian crisis since the Toba supervolcanic eruption 70000 years ago and truly grotesque times as a result.

 

 

1 hour ago, BlueBrett said:

I invite you to consider a thought experiment:

 

We know "they" lie about many things right? Well I think there is one particular example that is highly instructive.

 

The food pyramid.

 

It has now been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that a giant malevolent conspiracy produced the original food pyramid. There is a lot to the story but essentially the sugar and grain industries bribed nutrition scientists at prominent institutions to make up lies about the harmfulness of saturated fat and the amount of starchy foods we should eat.

 

So in other words, "they" were willing to lie and compromise the health of hundreds of millions of people for decades just to sell more ****ing breakfast cereal. 

 

All this shit is documented fact.

 

If they are willing to lie on such a massive scale about something as fundamental, important and seemingly apolitical as what foods we should eat....If they are willing to jeopardise the health of hundreds of millions of people, promoting obesity, auto-immune diseases, shorter life-expectancy and a whole host of other really nasty outcomes just to make money....

 

What the hell makes you think they wouldn't lie about the weather to secure and consolidate dominion over the entire world? 

 

 

And there were a few scientists paid off to write up cigarettes as harmless, and others to do the same with some medicines.

 

But the scientific method found them out in the end, and that's what it does. Not some conspiracist with a YouTube video and a slick manner sometimes selling snake oil on the side, the scientific method of empiricism discovered and rendered wrong all of these things. So will the method deliver the truth regarding climate change, too. Again, that it results in change is a feature, not a bug.

 

NB. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that things are going great with the "weather" and invent a more human threat that "they" can control, if increased control was "their" objective?

[Guest David Oldfields Gate]

4 hours ago, BlueBrett said:

Thank you!!!

 

For those who haven't woken up yet....there will be a DEI checklist on there too! 

Yes there is, already.

[Guest BlueBrett]

18 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, but that still sounds like taking away agency from these often very smart, very decent people by saying they're all buying into a system that subverts scientific truth - when to uphold that same truth is the very reason many of them became scientists in the first place. It's unfair to have such a low opinion of the science corps without proof, IMO.

Alright perhaps they are individually morally culpable then. I think that's a reasonable judgement honestly but I was trying to give them a partial out. 

What do you mean without proof? The proof is literally in what I said and confirmed by Dave Oldfield. The politicisation of funding applications is not some wild controversial claim. It is how the system works. Everyone who knows anything about it will acknowledge that and anyone involved in writing bids/proposals has to incorporate it into their pitch. Do you doubt this still? I promise you on my life that this is how it works.

 

18 hours ago, leicsmac said:

cience changes and progresses all the time - that's a feature, not a bug. If it didn't we'd still think in terms of the ether and four elements, rather than spacetime/quantum mechanics and the Periodic Table. Was the Millennium Bug suddenly no longer problematic because it was planned for and dealt with in good fashion? Survivorship bias - or an offshoot of it.

 

Of course it's difficult for anyone to admit they were wrong about something, but in the end physical, empirical method has the last word - as it has throughout history. And it will with this matter.

New evidence comes to light in certain fields which leads to revised models sure. That is not what happened during Covid. They knew they were lying all along about everything from the lethality of the virus to the effectiveness of PPE and social distancing, the rationale and data in support of lockdowns through to literally every single thing about the production, distribution, safety and efficacy of the vaccines. The Science DID NOT change. They knowingly bare face lied about all of this stuff. Tom Woods put out a book recently where he lays it all out chronologically. What they were saying vs what they knew at every stage of the whole filthy charade. He has receipts for everything and honestly most of it was in the public domain at the time but most people were unaware since not only were they lying to us all but they were HEAVILY censoring ALL dissent as well. 

 

You think they would go to all those lengths to deceive us over Covid and to shut down open debate online and even amongst their pet scientists but for some reason they would never manipulate the narrative around climate change? Mate it is the EXACT SAME PEOPLE involved. Look at all the so called "liberal elite" who exposed themselves as actual megalomaniacal population hating authoritarians during Covid. It's literally the same ****ing crew pushing the climate stuff so hard. 

 

It simply wasn't the case that the truth came out due to the integrity of the scientific community or some emergent data/method. It only came out because they overplayed their hand, spread themselves too thin and their network of censorship sprang leaks. 

 

18 hours ago, leicsmac said:

There are already "artificial" food and water shortages caused by what some refer to as the "free market" and also through government intervention in places. Yeah, a future where that becomes a much more massive issue is one to be avoided, but one where we let emissions run amok and the global average temperature climbs into the roof is the much more likely way that happens. Nature is a much better killer than humans could ever be, that's why a single preventable disease killed more people in the 20th Century than all incidents of war in that same century put together.

 

And yeah, if the shit hits the fan for whatever reason I'm refusing the call too. But that war and that shortage of resources is much more likely to be naturally than artificially caused.

Huh? Where in the world is there anything even remotely approximating a free market? Genuine question. If you have a real answer I will move there next week. 

 

Let's not get into a data war but the global average temperature is much lower today than it was in The Middle Ages (although these corrupt scientists are currently in the process of trying to **** with the historical data) and at many many other times in the history of the planet. We go through a cycle. The idea that we have any control over that is one of the most ridiculously hubristic things I have heard in my life. Completely absurd and the world's leading physicists agree with me. I genuinely believe this is an important element of the multi-decade psyop. It's the death of God thing. Kill him off and replace him with man/science. If there is no god then perhaps there is no objective morality. Perhaps we can just do whatever the **** we want. The globalists love themselves some depravity - just look at what they get up to at their parties and on their private islands. (Don't get me started on this one I've got literally a book's worth of questions and theories).

18 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I don't think that you're crazy at all. I would be a shit science communicator if I dismissed people as so, and I appreciate the time and the responses.

 

But...one of us is wrong about this matter.

 

I think that it is you.

 

I hope that it is me, because then we might have a better chance of revisiting this discussion in a few decades without hearing about the biggest humanitarian crisis since the Toba supervolcanic eruption 70000 years ago and truly grotesque times as a result.

Appreciate you too mate  It feels good to vent some of this stuff sometimes. I'll admit I spend way too much time thinking about it. It's tough not to though. Once you've seen their true face you never forget it. To be clear, I don't claim to know what's going to happen, I'm obviously not privy to their plans. My claim is simply that the official narrative in relation to climate change makes no sense and I guess I'm also claiming that it pretty much never does in relation to any major story/event. The propaganda and disingenuous nonsense seems to be becoming increasingly obvious. Not sure if they're losing their touch or, more worryingly, if they just care less about hiding now.

 

Also I'm not saying that there isn't going to be some horrific event. It's inevitable right. Whether it's a pole shift or coronal mass ejection or super volcano I don't know. These things happen and there isn't much we can do other than prepare ourselves for the aftermath. The Billionaires are already doing so aren't they. But all of the things most likely to cause a cataclysmic event have exactly **** all to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
 

19 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And there were a few scientists paid off to write up cigarettes as harmless, and others to do the same with some medicines.

 

But the scientific method found them out in the end, and that's what it does. Not some conspiracist with a YouTube video and a slick manner sometimes selling snake oil on the side, the scientific method of empiricism discovered and rendered wrong all of these things. So will the method deliver the truth regarding climate change, too. Again, that it results in change is a feature, not a bug.

 

NB. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that things are going great with the "weather" and invent a more human threat that "they" can control, if increased control was "their" objective?

It wasn't a few scientists. It was a sprawling conspiracy at the highest levels spanning academia, industry and politics...Just like climate change.

 

Again, it wasn't that they were 'found out' by the scientific method. The web of lies just fell apart. Only after they had pushed it on hundreds of millions of people for 20 years mind you. 

I think this food pyramid one is an illustrative example in another interesting way too.

 

We should have known it was bullshit from the start. You didn't actually need to have been a nutrition scientist or human biologist or even an expert in anthropology to figure out that what they were pushing was extremely unlikely to be true. Not even talking about looking at the incentives which would have also been instructive. Just a basic cursory knowledge of human evolution and history that your average 12 year old has should have been enough for us to at least challenge what they were saying.

 

Think about it....how long have humans been around? Depends where you wanna make the distinction right but even if you only go back to actual homo sapiens you are talking 200,000 - 300,000 years. Bipedal hominids have obviously been around much longer. Maybe 4 or 5 million years. 

 

What did our ancestors eat? Well.....meat and plants obviously

 

Agriculture wasn't invented until much more recently so they can't have been chowing down on bread and pasta. Estimates vary and they keep pushing it back but it seems like it was maybe 12000 years ago which makes sense since it was pretty much Ice Age before that.

 

So we were expected to believe that as a species we evolved in such a way that some category of food stuff which didn't even exist for virtually our entire evolutionary history is actually the optimum mainstay for a healthy diet. That is patently absurd when you think about it right? But people don't think about stuff.

 

 

Don't be dismissive like that please. I told you before this idea of a 'consensus' that you have is simply not accurate and I certainly do not get my info from some kid on Youtube. They aren't high profile on the internet because anything that contradicts the mainstream narrative is either censored completely or algorithmically marginalised but within their fields these are some of the top guys. there are hundreds of them. For a starting point check out Steve Koonin (former director of the centre for urban science and progress), Freeman Dyson (one of the most respected theoretical physicists and mathematicians of all time) , Frederick Seitz (formed head of The American National Academy of Science) and Patrick Moore (co-founder or Greenpeace) just for starters. You can follow the rabbit hole down on your own from there.

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, BlueBrett said:

Alright perhaps they are individually morally culpable then. I think that's a reasonable judgement honestly but I was trying to give them a partial out. 

What do you mean without proof? The proof is literally in what I said and confirmed by Dave Oldfield. The politicisation of funding applications is not some wild controversial claim. It is how the system works. Everyone who knows anything about it will acknowledge that and anyone involved in writing bids/proposals has to incorporate it into their pitch. Do you doubt this still? I promise you on my life that this is how it works.

 

 

Right. And that is where we differ, because I believe them (mostly) to be neither malicious, incompetent or subverting the truth for the sake of an easier, better paid life.

 

WRT proof, I guess we differ here too. I have no doubt you have seen what you have seen and drawn your own conclusions from it, but there's a reason that anecdotes don't become universal truth by themselves - there needs to be proper independent investigative, repeatable study done, in the same way any scientific matter is addressed (because this does concern the very use of the scientific method itself) before I would be satisfied that the accusations being levelled here - that the climate science corps are guilty of manipulating and ignoring data for their own ends and presenting what they have as false because of base interests, and that funding models are a key part of that data manipulation - are true across the entire academic corps (or even a small part of it).

 

Now, I can understand that may seem unreasonable to ask that, because the very same people doing the investigation may have links to (or may even be) the people they are investigating so you're never going to get such ironclad evidence of wrongdoing, but that really is the burden of proof necessary here, so we're at something of an impasse.

 

4 hours ago, BlueBrett said:

 

New evidence comes to light in certain fields which leads to revised models sure. That is not what happened during Covid. They knew they were lying all along about everything from the lethality of the virus to the effectiveness of PPE and social distancing, the rationale and data in support of lockdowns through to literally every single thing about the production, distribution, safety and efficacy of the vaccines. The Science DID NOT change. They knowingly bare face lied about all of this stuff. Tom Woods put out a book recently where he lays it all out chronologically. What they were saying vs what they knew at every stage of the whole filthy charade. He has receipts for everything and honestly most of it was in the public domain at the time but most people were unaware since not only were they lying to us all but they were HEAVILY censoring ALL dissent as well. 

 

You think they would go to all those lengths to deceive us over Covid and to shut down open debate online and even amongst their pet scientists but for some reason they would never manipulate the narrative around climate change? Mate it is the EXACT SAME PEOPLE involved. Look at all the so called "liberal elite" who exposed themselves as actual megalomaniacal population hating authoritarians during Covid. It's literally the same ****ing crew pushing the climate stuff so hard. 

 

It simply wasn't the case that the truth came out due to the integrity of the scientific community or some emergent data/method. It only came out because they overplayed their hand, spread themselves too thin and their network of censorship sprang leaks. 

 

 

See below for more on this.

 

4 hours ago, BlueBrett said:

 

Huh? Where in the world is there anything even remotely approximating a free market? Genuine question. If you have a real answer I will move there next week. 

There isn't one, but then I didn't say that - I said that there are both "free market" and command economy factors that cause harm to people through limiting their access to clean and healthy resources. I don't think that's overly controversial.

 

4 hours ago, BlueBrett said:

Let's not get into a data war but the global average temperature is much lower today than it was in The Middle Ages (although these corrupt scientists are currently in the process of trying to **** with the historical data) and at many many other times in the history of the planet. We go through a cycle. The idea that we have any control over that is one of the most ridiculously hubristic things I have heard in my life. Completely absurd and the world's leading physicists agree with me. I genuinely believe this is an important element of the multi-decade psyop. It's the death of God thing. Kill him off and replace him with man/science. If there is no god then perhaps there is no objective morality. Perhaps we can just do whatever the **** we want. The globalists love themselves some depravity - just look at what they get up to at their parties and on their private islands. (Don't get me started on this one I've got literally a book's worth of questions and theories).

 

I can supply evidence showing that the global average temperature is higher now than it has been for many thousands of years, but if we're going to quibble about the data source and reliability, yeah, better to leave that out.

 

We don't have sole control over temperatures or anything like that, but we are exacerbating already existing cycles and causing them to go much faster than they would otherwise do. If that's hubris, then so be it - speaking personally and I'm agnostic and Marcus Aurelius had it right about gods two thousand years ago. We're certainly nothing to the Earth in some terms of the damage caused or the time we've been here, but we do have effects and we do have a responsibility to the future to been good custodians - that's not playing God or taking the place of one, that's just being nice.

 

4 hours ago, BlueBrett said:

Appreciate you too mate  It feels good to vent some of this stuff sometimes. I'll admit I spend way too much time thinking about it. It's tough not to though. Once you've seen their true face you never forget it. To be clear, I don't claim to know what's going to happen, I'm obviously not privy to their plans. My claim is simply that the official narrative in relation to climate change makes no sense and I guess I'm also claiming that it pretty much never does in relation to any major story/event. The propaganda and disingenuous nonsense seems to be becoming increasingly obvious. Not sure if they're losing their touch or, more worryingly, if they just care less about hiding now.

 

Also I'm not saying that there isn't going to be some horrific event. It's inevitable right. Whether it's a pole shift or coronal mass ejection or super volcano I don't know. These things happen and there isn't much we can do other than prepare ourselves for the aftermath. The Billionaires are already doing so aren't they. But all of the things most likely to cause a cataclysmic event have exactly **** all to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

You clearly worry about the present and future as much as I do - we just have different ideas behind that worry. More on that, see below.

 

WRT disasters, yeah, law of averages stipulates there's going to be one at some point, and preparation is our only defence - though perhaps as we advance along the tech tree we might be able to change things there.

 

4 hours ago, BlueBrett said:

 

Again, it wasn't that they were 'found out' by the scientific method. The web of lies just fell apart. Only after they had pushed it on hundreds of millions of people for 20 years mind you. 

I think this food pyramid one is an illustrative example in another interesting way too.

 

We should have known it was bullshit from the start. You didn't actually need to have been a nutrition scientist or human biologist or even an expert in anthropology to figure out that what they were pushing was extremely unlikely to be true. Not even talking about looking at the incentives which would have also been instructive. Just a basic cursory knowledge of human evolution and history that your average 12 year old has should have been enough for us to at least challenge what they were saying.

 

Think about it....how long have humans been around? Depends where you wanna make the distinction right but even if you only go back to actual homo sapiens you are talking 200,000 - 300,000 years. Bipedal hominids have obviously been around much longer. Maybe 4 or 5 million years. 

 

What did our ancestors eat? Well.....meat and plants obviously

 

Agriculture wasn't invented until much more recently so they can't have been chowing down on bread and pasta. Estimates vary and they keep pushing it back but it seems like it was maybe 12000 years ago which makes sense since it was pretty much Ice Age before that.

 

So we were expected to believe that as a species we evolved in such a way that some category of food stuff which didn't even exist for virtually our entire evolutionary history is actually the optimum mainstay for a healthy diet. That is patently absurd when you think about it right? But people don't think about stuff.

 

 

Don't be dismissive like that please. I told you before this idea of a 'consensus' that you have is simply not accurate and I certainly do not get my info from some kid on Youtube. They aren't high profile on the internet because anything that contradicts the mainstream narrative is either censored completely or algorithmically marginalised but within their fields these are some of the top guys. there are hundreds of them. For a starting point check out Steve Koonin (former director of the centre for urban science and progress), Freeman Dyson (one of the most respected theoretical physicists and mathematicians of all time) , Frederick Seitz (formed head of The American National Academy of Science) and Patrick Moore (co-founder or Greenpeace) just for starters. You can follow the rabbit hole down on your own from there.

 

 

The "ideal food" debate is an interesting one. Yes, humans ate the same hunter-gatherer diet for thousands of years. But does that mean that it was in any way optimal in terms of health, or just good enough in terms of convenience and survival that humans were able to get by with it until mass agriculture? Long-lasting doesn't always = best.

 

And here we come to the crux of the matter really, the fundamental disagreement that we have. You seem to lack any kind of trust in the scientific method of peer review, because it has somehow been "ideologically captured" and perverted and then through some other mechanism (not sure if you're specific about what it is) the "truth" comes out and has discredited it.

 

Speaking personally, I trust the scientific method that we have now with the keyboard I'm typing this message on, with the set of cables that carry it onto the FT server, and with the pair of glasses I'm wearing to see the thing in the first place. All of those things, though products of engineering, required that same method to be conceived, created and maintained.

 

I don't trust the current scientific method of deriving "fact" and "truth" because it's anywhere near perfect (no such thing involving humans could be), but because there is no other system that has derived such truth and resulted in more discoveries that benefit a greater number of people in history. Time was that we used the tenets of organised religion to explain how the world works (and a lot of places still do), but for me the method of empiricism, repeatable verifiable observation that is then verified by other experts in a field, remains the best way of discovering universal facts that we have at this time. It is like Churchill referring to democracy - the best imperfect option we have as a species right now. Allowing scientific fact to be left to whatever the populist call of the day is, rather than empirical expertise, leads nowhere good at all. And it leads there quickly. History shows that very clearly.

 

Pardon if I appeared dismissive there, but I see pseudoscientific arguments based on zero evidence every day and I'm inclined to simply dismiss them via Hitchens Razor. Your argument is different because it goes to the very heart of epistemology, what "evidence" and "proof" is and how it is sourced, and I acknowledge and respect that. However, I simply cannot - will not - trust the word of these "top guys" you quote over a vastly larger amount of presented data saying otherwise. If these people are right, then their viewpoint will become the predominant one in time. But for now, it isn't.

 

Anyhow, I think we've reached something of a junction here - we've both made our points very clearly and at length. I know my own viewpoint won't convince you, and I'm sure that yours won't convince me either. I guess that those observing this discussion will have to make up their own minds on the matter.

 

As I said above, one of us is wrong. I think that it is you. I hope that it is me. There are far too many lives and futures at stake.

 

Enjoy your day.

Edited 19 January by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-climate-atmospheric-dynamics-unveil-future.html

 

...a collaborative team of researchers led by Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Arts & Sciences have peeled back layers of atmospheric dynamics to reveal a startling truth: The interplay of natural systems and human-induced climate change is setting the stage for more frequent and severe weather events...

 

...The researchers found that, prior to the heat dome event, the planetary wave—large-scale atmospheric fluxes in winds that cause weather change—over the Pacific Northwest amplified due to resonance, which is a related process where certain atmospheric conditions align in a way that reinforces the wave's strength and persistence.

The increase in the wave's amplitude likely resulted in a reduction of soil moisture in the region. The drier soil, in turn, contributed to an increase in atmospheric temperatures, a key factor in the extreme warming observed during the heat dome event.

 

The researchers note this complex interaction between the Earth's atmosphere and its terrestrial landscapes reveals an essential truth about extreme weather conditions: They don't occur in isolation but are the result of a series of interlinked processes.

 

The link between increasing global average temperature and more severe weather events has been theorised in the past, but it continues to gain categorical empirical proof too.

 

Also, Phys.org is such a brilliant resource for direct research news.

[leicsmac]

Also, with respect to the above discussion, a pertinent quote from Carl Sagan:

 

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-climate-planet-largest-reserves.html

 

An international study of temperature variations in 12 caves around the world shows that a large part of the Earth's freshwater reserves available for immediate consumption can be at risk due to climate change.

 

Caves allow scientists to observe the underground systems that are distributed throughout the planet—systems that—in their vast majority—are inaccessible to human beings. These ecosystems are home to the largest reserves of freshwater available for immediate human consumption and are inhabited by unique and highly adapted organisms, which guarantee the quality of these strategic reserves for the future of humanity by recycling organic matter and contaminants.

 

Couple this with drought and suddenly you may well have a need right at the very bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy kicked away for a great many people. The results of that could be....interesting.

[leicsmac]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-023-00074-1

 

"Since the early 1990s, increasing political polarisation is among the greatest determinants of individual-level environmental and climate change attitudes in the United States. But several patterns remain unclear: are historical patterns of polarisation largely symmetrical (equal) or is rather asymmetrical (where one set of partisans shifts more than others)? How have polarisation patterns have changed over time? How generalizable are polarization patterns across different environmental and climate change attitudes? We harmonised four unique sets of historical, pooled cross-sectional survey data from the past 50 years to investigate shifts across seven distinct measures of citizen environmental and climate change attitudes. We find that contemporary attitudes are polarised symmetrically, with Democrats (higher) and Republicans (lower) attitudes are equidistant from the median. But the historical trends in polarisation differ by attitudes and beliefs. In particular, we find evidence of two distinct historical patterns of asymmetric polarisation within environmental and climate change attitudes: first, with Republicans becoming less pro-environmental, beginning in the early 1990s, and second, a more recent greening of Democratic environmental attitudes since the mid-2010s. Notably, recent increases in pro-environmental attitudes within Democrats is a potentially optimistic finding, providing opportunities towards overcoming decades-long inertia in climate action. These findings provide a foundation for further research avenues into the factors shaping increased pro-environmental attitudes within Democrats."

 

If and when scientific truth and policymaking becomes a matter of populist opinion, then our species' future as a "civilisation" will become very nasty, brutish and (geologically) short.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310

 

For the first time, global warming has exceeded 1.5C across an entire year, according to the EU's climate service.

World leaders promised in 2015 to try to limit the long-term temperature rise to 1.5C, which is seen as crucial to help avoid the most damaging impacts.

This first year-long breach doesn't break that landmark "Paris agreement", but it does bring the world closer to doing so in the long-term.

Urgent action to cut carbon emissions can still slow warming, scientists say.

"This far exceeds anything that is acceptable," Prof Sir Bob Watson, a former chair of the UN's climate body, told the BBC Radio 4's Today Programme.

"Look what's happened this year with only 1.5C - we've seen floods, we've seen droughts, we've seen heatwaves and wildfires all over the world, and we're starting to see less agricultural productivity and some problems with water quality and quantity."

The period from February 2023 to January 2024 reached 1.52C of warming, according to the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service. The following graph shows how that compares with previous years.

 

 

 

Not good.

 

What was it Carlin said? "The planet is fine. The people are fvcked."

Edited 8 February by leicsmac

[BertFill]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

What was it Carlin said? "The planet is fine. The people are fvcked."

Willie Carlin??

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, BertFill said:

Willie Carlin??

Sadly not the former Liverpool midfielder. Or the ex-MI5 spy.

 

George Carlin.

 

 

[leicsmac]

.... and in related news on the same day, Labour ditch their climate pledge.

 

Sigh. Short-sighted in the extreme.

[BertFill]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

40 minutes ago, BertFill said:

Willie Carlin??

Sadly not the former Liverpool midfielder.

'Former Liverpool' midfielder indeed. Harrumph. And on a Leicester forum as well...

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, BertFill said:

'Former Liverpool' midfielder indeed. Harrumph. And on a Leicester forum as well...

Well, he did start at Liverpool and was a bit of a journeyman...

[MPH]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68233330

 

 

Very exciting development!

 

 

who DOESNT want limitless clean energy?

[Zear0]

56 minutes ago, MPH said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68233330

 

 

Very exciting development!

 

 

who DOESNT want limitless clean energy?

Can I be the really miserable one and point out they'd never used high fuel loads before as they didn't want to irradiate the reactor vessel.  Last ops running so they just slung a load of fuel in.

[BertFill]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

who DOESNT want limitless clean energy?

People who sell limited dirty energy?

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68233330

 

 

Very exciting development!

 

 

who DOESNT want limitless clean energy?

 

43 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Can I be the really miserable one and point out they'd never used high fuel loads before as they didn't want to irradiate the reactor vessel.  Last ops running so they just slung a load of fuel in.

And that's just one of the roadblocks in the way, more's the pity.

 

But we'll get there one day. The rewards and the need to satisfy energy demand without causing rapid and irrevocable civilisational change mean we don't have a choice.

 

29 minutes ago, BertFill said:

People who sell limited dirty energy?

Very true.

 

However, hopefully long term thought will win over the business world in that regard.