5 ms·

You appear to be climate hesitant. We are simply following the science.

by krona 4y ago

verisimi 4y ago
Re science, I did say: > Can we even be cognisant of the facts, or are even scientific institutions bent to political ends? Which of these parties - corporate, governmental, military - that sponsor research is the one that is interested in truth, rather than control and power? ... which is akin to religions of the past. I would say I'm 'climate alarmism hesitant' or 'governance narrative hesitant'. I don't trust the honesty of our institutions to act in a way that is beneficial for people, as opposed to gaining more power and control for themselves. From an anti-statist position, I think I can look at the provided narrative from a different perspective, without the heat or panic. I suggest to you the narrative is non-sensical and that you have no personal experience to support it. And that it should be ignored.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  You are spreading misinformation. The nice thing about science is, that it is based on reviewable parts. It is "open source", if you want to look at it that way. Yes, there are always single actors, which might have an agenda and some parts of science are in active discussions. But most parts of science are not. So there is no scientific doubt about that if you jump from the roof of a reasonably high house, you will get injured or die. Feel free to demonstrate the opposite in an experiment. You don't? A good decision! The science behind the climate change caused by humans is known for way over 100 years. Arrhenius did the first calculations in the 19th century. This is very basic science, verified by experiments and observations over and over again. So why are you claiming it isn't? If you are into conspiration theories, try this: The oil industry is the richest. If there were any scientific evidence showing that humans with their CO2 emissions are not responsible for climate change or that climate change itself didn't exist, why wouldn't the oil industry finance research in this domain? A scientist, who could prove that could make millions if not billions. Yet there isn't any of those. Actually, it is on record that the scientists of Exxon in the late 70ies did correctly predict the global warming we experienced in the last 50 years. Because, well, the science is pretty simple and clear.
  - verisimi 4y ago
    You are spreading misinformation. You believe that politicians and political systems are there to help people, whereas I say they are about controlling and disempowering individuals. You believe science is impervious to politicisation. Misinformation! > So there is no scientific doubt about that if you jump from the roof of a reasonably high house, you will get injured or die. That is a ridiculous example - this is plainly verifiable. But where is your equivalent verifiable example re climate change? > The science behind the climate change caused by humans is known for way over 100 years. In the 70s the concern was re global cooling or mini-ice age. Then it was global warming. Now it is the vanilla term 'climate change' which can mean anything. I wish the science would make up its mind and stop flip-flopping! My point though is that science is only bent to serve a governance agenda of control - hence all the narrative switches. Re the issues of science, let's put aside the reproducibility crisis in science (where papers cannot be reproduced in most cases, even by the authors themselves), and talk just about funding. Do you think it is possible to skew the results if you only pay for whatever is in your interests? Eg, if you are a pharmaceutical company would you pay for a study that could be supportive of fasting as a solution to disease, even if that meant your cancer/diabetes/etc drugs took a hit? Or do you pay for a study that supports further use of a drug? Wrt to climate change, if you pay for lots of studies, some will be in support of some part of your thesis, some neutral, some against. You do not need to promote those against, you can simply pay for more studies in the areas that support the thesis you prefer. You will soon have libraries of data that support whatever you want. But does that data help us establish the truth so we can make informed decisions? The answer is no. Until you realise how our institutions are captured and put to use to serve a governance agenda, there is no meaningful discussion to be had about the data those captured institutions provide us. With your point about oil industry etc, you will probably find individual scientists do make that point about co2 (though you will have to search them out, as it's this is not information that can be allowed in the media). What I think you are missing is that whoever is running the show doesn't just own the oil industry. They see in global warming both a new huge market and an opportunity to take greater control. You should check out Al Gore's financial investments. If you think your cycling everywhere will make any difference to the damage those corporations and governments do, you are dreaming. The danger is that your (provided) dream will disempower everyone - you will be cheering our demise of our freedoms, because you don't believe your lying eyes but do believe what you are told at school, on a screen and by paid for science studies.
- krona 4y ago
  I was agreeing with your basic premise by using words/phases from the previous mass hysteria. Sorry the satire was too subtle. I personally haven't read all the IPCC reports (is it even possible for one human) but I think I've read enough to know that 'the science' paints a completely different picture to the one presented to the masses by policymakers though the media. The west is engaged in trading-off food security for some kind of perverse moral purity. A kind of utopian lysenkoism.

You appear to be climate hesitant. We are simply following the science.

by krona 4y ago

You appear to be climate hesitant. We are simply following the science.

Re science, I did say: > Can we even be cognisant of the facts, or are even scientific institutions bent to political ends? Which of these parties - corporate, governmental, military - that sponsor research is the one that is interested in truth, rather than control and power? ... which is akin to religions of the past. I would say I'm 'climate alarmism hesitant' or 'governance narrative hesitant'. I don't trust the honesty of our institutions to act in a way that is beneficial for people, as opposed to gaining more power and control for themselves. From an anti-statist position, I think I can look at the provided narrative from a different perspective, without the heat or panic. I suggest to you the narrative is non-sensical and that you have no personal experience to support it. And that it should be ignored.

_ph_ 4y ago
You are spreading misinformation. The nice thing about science is, that it is based on reviewable parts. It is "open source", if you want to look at it that way. Yes, there are always single actors, which might have an agenda and some parts of science are in active discussions. But most parts of science are not. So there is no scientific doubt about that if you jump from the roof of a reasonably high house, you will get injured or die. Feel free to demonstrate the opposite in an experiment. You don't? A good decision! The science behind the climate change caused by humans is known for way over 100 years. Arrhenius did the first calculations in the 19th century. This is very basic science, verified by experiments and observations over and over again. So why are you claiming it isn't? If you are into conspiration theories, try this: The oil industry is the richest. If there were any scientific evidence showing that humans with their CO2 emissions are not responsible for climate change or that climate change itself didn't exist, why wouldn't the oil industry finance research in this domain? A scientist, who could prove that could make millions if not billions. Yet there isn't any of those. Actually, it is on record that the scientists of Exxon in the late 70ies did correctly predict the global warming we experienced in the last 50 years. Because, well, the science is pretty simple and clear.
- verisimi 4y ago
  You are spreading misinformation. You believe that politicians and political systems are there to help people, whereas I say they are about controlling and disempowering individuals. You believe science is impervious to politicisation. Misinformation! > So there is no scientific doubt about that if you jump from the roof of a reasonably high house, you will get injured or die. That is a ridiculous example - this is plainly verifiable. But where is your equivalent verifiable example re climate change? > The science behind the climate change caused by humans is known for way over 100 years. In the 70s the concern was re global cooling or mini-ice age. Then it was global warming. Now it is the vanilla term 'climate change' which can mean anything. I wish the science would make up its mind and stop flip-flopping! My point though is that science is only bent to serve a governance agenda of control - hence all the narrative switches. Re the issues of science, let's put aside the reproducibility crisis in science (where papers cannot be reproduced in most cases, even by the authors themselves), and talk just about funding. Do you think it is possible to skew the results if you only pay for whatever is in your interests? Eg, if you are a pharmaceutical company would you pay for a study that could be supportive of fasting as a solution to disease, even if that meant your cancer/diabetes/etc drugs took a hit? Or do you pay for a study that supports further use of a drug? Wrt to climate change, if you pay for lots of studies, some will be in support of some part of your thesis, some neutral, some against. You do not need to promote those against, you can simply pay for more studies in the areas that support the thesis you prefer. You will soon have libraries of data that support whatever you want. But does that data help us establish the truth so we can make informed decisions? The answer is no. Until you realise how our institutions are captured and put to use to serve a governance agenda, there is no meaningful discussion to be had about the data those captured institutions provide us. With your point about oil industry etc, you will probably find individual scientists do make that point about co2 (though you will have to search them out, as it's this is not information that can be allowed in the media). What I think you are missing is that whoever is running the show doesn't just own the oil industry. They see in global warming both a new huge market and an opportunity to take greater control. You should check out Al Gore's financial investments. If you think your cycling everywhere will make any difference to the damage those corporations and governments do, you are dreaming. The danger is that your (provided) dream will disempower everyone - you will be cheering our demise of our freedoms, because you don't believe your lying eyes but do believe what you are told at school, on a screen and by paid for science studies.
krona 4y ago
I was agreeing with your basic premise by using words/phases from the previous mass hysteria. Sorry the satire was too subtle. I personally haven't read all the IPCC reports (is it even possible for one human) but I think I've read enough to know that 'the science' paints a completely different picture to the one presented to the masses by policymakers though the media. The west is engaged in trading-off food security for some kind of perverse moral purity. A kind of utopian lysenkoism.