Avatar
pseudo~u *likes nostr already*
95c33bfbb96b0f463cb80f6f2e229ded74f36e9694e6b04dec5124e4ef6bde66
Peace, love, freedom. First freedom.. Maddie de Garay was a 12 year old in the trial for Pfizer's covid vaccine. Immediately after her second jab she had a severe reaction that has put her in a wheelchair ever since. Pfizer simply decreed that this was not an effect of the vaccine - even though this was in the trial whose purpose is literally to determine the vaccine's effects. The FDA and CDC would not even speak to Maddy's parents. They tried to convince them Maddy was crazy. There is no possible conclusion except that the vaccines were developed in bad faith, and the authorities - including any doctors who promoted the vaccines - cannot be trusted. Be in no doubt that they will kill your children if it suits them. Never forget, never forgive. https://fullmeasure.news/newest-videos/vaccine-trials

About the only thing we know for sure is that, yes, the climate always changes.

Is the current change unusual?

Nobody knows. There is simply no data to show what normal variation in global temperature (worth considering how elusive a notion this is) over the course of decades is.

Ok many reasons why it is but I'll try this 1:

It is indisputable that increased temp causes increased atmospheric co2 - as gases are less soluble in water with higher temp, plus ground melts releasing gas.

If the reverse were also true, and increased co2 led to increased temp, then any rise in temp or co2 through history would lead to runaway heating.

The fact that earth has not had runaway heating, despite continual climate change throughout history, shows either co2 doesn't cause temp rise, or else there is some overwhelming stabilization effect.

Either way the alarmism is nonsense.

(There are many other reasons)

I never wore a mask and was frequently the only person without one in shops etc.

I feel a slight kinship now with these people.

At any rate I respect them more than the sheep who only wore them because everyone else did and only don't because everyone else doesn't..

And in a world where most mainstream content is derivative dross that can't be distinguished from the chat-gpt normie simulator, the only thing of value will be genuine human originality.

Replying to Avatar Beaker

Thanks. This is helpful. I don’t get to chat to folks with your side of the argument much- which I recognise is part of the problem. Maybe nostr is better than Twitter echo chamber? Tbc I agree with you that climate “catastrophe” is overstated and govs using it as a power grab BUT equally I find it hard to put my risk estimate so low. If you ignore the doom sayers who are a small (but loud minority) there is a body of evidence that makes me give some weight to the risk. I find the scientific community to be the most dissident and sceptical and overly righteous folks out there. If the evidence is poor they’d be all over it. Proving things wrong - that’s kinda the method. What’s hard is that it’s complex. I know my field but wouldn’t comment or peer review outside that so that leaves us to weight how much I “trust” that group. That leaves the probability that 1) everyone is an idiot (possible but I would weight that around <1% as they do get other stuff right sometimes and the models they use do work in other fields very well) 2) They are all colluding (again possible but knowing scientists I would put that at <0.01%) 3) They are looking at the wrong data (this is related to point 1 but also includes the smart ones just biased / blinkered - maybe ~10%) 4) they are mostly right but it’s not as bad (maybe ~50%) 5) they are bang on or under (maybe 50%).

Have I missed anything or made any incorrect assumptions? What’s your take on the weightings? (They don’t need to add up to 100 as they are relative).

I think you are missing another possibility (on your 1 thru 5). They all know, at some level that this is wrong, but everyone around them is going along with it - and those people who don't go along with it are crushed, lose their funding and careers etc.

I have personally witnessed this, working in government. There was a bad thing going on that essentially everyone knew about, and would all agree was terrible (it was really bad) but 100% of them still went along with it - hundreds of people, including plenty of "scientists". I was literally the only person who didn't - but nobody would know that because I got pushed out.

It's natural human behaviour - we evolved so that the vast majority will follow the crowd and do whatever everyone else does, no matter how nonsensical or cruel. History and psychology are completely clear about this, eg Milgram experiment etc where people do totally ridiculous things, or take action that is apparently hurting people, apparently without limit as long as they think its expected. It's extremely difficult and rare for anyone to go against this.

But there are indeed dissident scientists who challenge AGW but they have all been vilified or silenced - and you certainly won't see them on mainstream media unless its in some kind of hit piece to try to destroy their credibility. Egs: Judith Curry, Willie Soon, William Happer

Nonsense, mainly.

Just one example, coral reefs aren't dying off its all cherry picking and fantasy

Replying to Avatar Beaker

Thanks. This is helpful. I don’t get to chat to folks with your side of the argument much- which I recognise is part of the problem. Maybe nostr is better than Twitter echo chamber? Tbc I agree with you that climate “catastrophe” is overstated and govs using it as a power grab BUT equally I find it hard to put my risk estimate so low. If you ignore the doom sayers who are a small (but loud minority) there is a body of evidence that makes me give some weight to the risk. I find the scientific community to be the most dissident and sceptical and overly righteous folks out there. If the evidence is poor they’d be all over it. Proving things wrong - that’s kinda the method. What’s hard is that it’s complex. I know my field but wouldn’t comment or peer review outside that so that leaves us to weight how much I “trust” that group. That leaves the probability that 1) everyone is an idiot (possible but I would weight that around <1% as they do get other stuff right sometimes and the models they use do work in other fields very well) 2) They are all colluding (again possible but knowing scientists I would put that at <0.01%) 3) They are looking at the wrong data (this is related to point 1 but also includes the smart ones just biased / blinkered - maybe ~10%) 4) they are mostly right but it’s not as bad (maybe ~50%) 5) they are bang on or under (maybe 50%).

Have I missed anything or made any incorrect assumptions? What’s your take on the weightings? (They don’t need to add up to 100 as they are relative).

Ok well props to you for entertaining alternative viewpoints. Thats pretty rare these days and I appreciate amd value it.

But to do justice to your points i first need to set up a desktop nostr client as i can't talk properly by phone!

(Any recommendations for linux?)

İts less than that

I'd first need evidence that science was being done properly, with dissent and scepticism valued.

Then I'd need a model of the climate which got around the problem that the climate is a complex / chaotic system and basically impossible to model.

But none of this matters because the politics is now totally disconnected even from "The Science" as it stands. People literally think humans are going extinct this century and even ipcc says nothing remotely like that.

İt's a pure death cult

<1% for sure

I've been around long enough to remember the same people telling me there'd be no snow by 2010, polar bears will be extinct, coral reefs are dying

İts always been bullshit i can't believe people fall for jt

İ mean "climate emergency" seriously???

Eh i thought the science was settled! 😁