The Myth Of Settled Science: Assault On Humans, Reason And Capitalism; France's Mathematicians Enter The Foray

/Taps mic. repeatedly. One, two. Cha, cha, blah. Testing. Herpes.


We're told by the forces of the Dark Ages the science pimped about climate system change is 'settled'. It is now my opinion there is no more a destructive assertion as people crying 'settled science'.

There is no settled science. Just political settled science.

In addition, I observed for too long that side of the debate hurl attacks, calls for imprisonment, lawsuits against journalists and outright refuse to engage in honest, open debate in the matter choosing instead to flee like arrogant cowards and attack from afar.

This raised worry flags for me.

In life, we usually dismiss someone who behaves this away as being defensive and not credible. I will apply this simple axiom to the defenders of climate-system change.

As time moves on, day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year we discover we're not in any great peril. This is a straight forward observable fact. They will obviously, as a result, play on our fears with grand 'what ifs' showing rising sea levels, starving polar bears and burning forests. Surely, we're the cause of such madness because why would earth do this to itself?

Well, it doesn't take any grand intellect to know one thing. The earth is one ugly and violent place. And by this I don't mean the humans in it. I mean, the earthquakes, ice ages, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and everything else are part of the essence and soul of earth. Anyone who picks up a book knows this to be true.

Our part in the whole opera is tiny. Microscopic. Therefore, logically, our impact in making 'meaningful change' will be negligible. I don't praise people who do their 'small bit'. I pity them. They willingly fall for a false narrative without an attempt to engage in healthy skepticism. Hence, governments take out ads speaking of doing one's part in the 'fight' against global warming. Ride a bike to work, don't use plastic bags, use public transport, limit the use of cars are not noble activities when used as props for this silly crusade. Your bike should be a hobby; an exercise; an enjoyable activity for its own sake. It has NO IMPACT on the environment and if you ride a bike thinking you it's unfortunate.

Asking people to impractically do this is one designed for the economic suicide of an ignorant society mired in a dark age.

Simple observations. If the political and intellectual classes ask you to pay carbon taxes and reduce your 'carbon imprint' then perhaps they should reduce their excesses. It's only fair, no? We must all do our 'fair share' as the mantra chants.

Ah. They don't do this now do they?

I do not know what will reverse this runaway arrogance of man when it comes to global warming. I want to believe it will dissipate on its own. I would hope Mother Nature can spit in our faces in time before we truly engage in disastrous green policies - as been evidenced already.

Something has to reset or rational thought. What will serve as a leitmotif if you will, I await for.

I can no longer bear to watch these beggars and shysters attack reason anymore.


France's mathematicians know where it's at.

I'm only about quarter through but well-worth the read.

It's titled, "The battle against global warming: an absurd,costly and pointless crusade White Paper drawn up by the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA"

Excerpts to intro:

"There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ̳disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so called global warming. As for extreme weather  events they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes. We are being told that ̳a temperature increase of more than 2ºC by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented‘. When they hear this, people worry: hasn‘t there already been an increase of 1.9ºC? 

Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1ºC every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.

Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ̳virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ̳energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.

We want to cut our CO2 emissions at any cost: it is a way of displaying our virtue for all to see. To achieve these reductions, we have significantly cut industrial activity and lost jobs. But at least we have achieved our aim of cutting CO2emissions, haven‘t we? The answer is laughable: apparently not. Global emissions of CO2have continued to rise

Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth‘s rotation.

French policy on CO2emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector.

International agreements on the subject began with the Kyoto Protocol, but the number of countries signing up to this agreement and its descendants are becoming fewer and fewer, now representing just 15% of emissions of greenhouse gases.

This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.

Insurance companies know what is what: the cost of natural phenomena (such as tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions) is ten times greater than the cost of any man-made disaster.

Another vital question here: do human beings have the technological ability to change the climate? The answer is no: human beings can do nothing about solar activity, the state of the oceans, the temperature of the Earth‘s magma, or the composition of the atmosphere. On the other hand, human beings are very capable of getting worked up about all sorts of things, of ̳skipping and swooning‘, as Baudelaire put it.

…One might wonder about the potential consequences of so-called global warming for human beings and the natural world. The answer is very simple: the natural world will adjust very well, as it has always done. Plants, in particular, would enjoy an increase in CO2concentrations.

…The answer is very simple: no sensible, high-quality journal would publish the IPPC‘s work. The IPPC‘s conclusions go against observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty), and the natural variability of phenomena is passed over without comment.

In a democracy, there is an opposition, and this opposition has a right, in principle, to express its views: this is what distinguishes democracy from dictatorship. But when it comes to the questions about global warming that we are talking about here, the opposition people who do not believe in global warming have been told to shut up: no public debate, no contradictory discourse, no articles in scientific journals. They have simply been told that the case is proven and it is time to take action."


No comments:

Post a Comment

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.