5 ms·

> You are spreading misinformation. No. You are. > You believe that politicians and political systems are there to help people, whereas I say they are about c

by _ph_ 4y ago

> You are spreading misinformation. No. You are. > 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! You are lying. I have not said anything about politicians, I have stressed the "open source" nature of science. Which means, that like with open software, the whole community can weed out bad actors (which certainly exists) and review what can be considered verified knowledge. >> 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? No it is a good example because the fundamentals of climate change have been equally well verified. The absorption spectrum of CO2 has been determined in the 19th century, based on that Arrhenius calculated the green house effect by CO2. Without that, the surface of the earth would be about 10 degrees colder. Equally, if we increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the surface gets warmer. This is basic high school physics. A various amount of measurements have confirmed the results including of course, the warming which has happened as predicted in the 70ies. Also it has been shown without a doubt that human emissions have raised the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 280 to 420 ppm in the last 150 years. >> 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. You are wrong. Indeed we are living in the warm part of an ice age. So over many millenia, a cooldown would have been expected. But mark this: we are talking about time frames over 10k years or more. There were of course some sensational articles. The anthropogenic (that word means caused by humans) climate change happens in the time frame of decades, about 100x faster than the cool down and of course completely overwhelmed that. So the science never flip-flopped. > 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? Perhaps on a single paper but not on independantly verified experiments. > 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? This is not at all comparable to experimentally verifiable science as physics. > 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? A lot of blabla. The basic science has been independantly verified over a time span of 150 years. Even the studies by Exxon scientists from the 70ies correctly predicted the global warming caused by CO2. > 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. You are just being silly. There is only likelyhood that you have been bought by the oil industry.

verisimi 4y ago
> > You are spreading misinformation. > No. You are. You. :) > You are just being silly. There is only likelyhood that you have been bought by the oil industry. It can't possibly be that science is just another religion. That everyone accepts its pronouncements on faith rather than personal verification..... There is no such thing as corruption, it can't be that there are powerful interests that put their resources to attempt to change the world to better suit them.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  I have brought scientific arguments, you have brought conspiration theories. You are constantly misrepresenting what I wrote, so I hope everyone can figure out about you.
  - verisimi 4y ago
    I'm saying that you are missing a major part of the discussion if you don't think about why and how science, politics and education play a role in why we do what we do. I'm not challenging your science arguments. I've only given examples to show how it is possible that science serves a governance agenda. That you don't think this is possible and can't apparently conceive of the idea or meaningfully engage with it, may tell people about you. Science is not sacrosanct. Applying the scientific method personally, verifying its claims is a highly worthwhile activity. Believing what you are told, not so much. And, what I've raised are not conspiracy theories. These are facts, but no, the media will not publicise the plans of the club of Rome (that created the idea of a climate change threat in order to mobilise the world against a perceived common enemy), the WEF, the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, UN, etc. These are powerful, unelected, corporate-funded, NGO-funded, governance institutions and thinktanks, that are planning our future. And the future is technocratic governance. Science will do what is needed in support. PS some club of Rome quotes: "The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome. "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome. "The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security." Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore's mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome. "I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world's first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world's central carbon trading body.

by _ph_ 4y ago

verisimi 4y ago

> > You are spreading misinformation. > No. You are. You. :) > You are just being silly. There is only likelyhood that you have been bought by the oil industry. It can't possibly be that science is just another religion. That everyone accepts its pronouncements on faith rather than personal verification..... There is no such thing as corruption, it can't be that there are powerful interests that put their resources to attempt to change the world to better suit them.

_ph_ 4y ago
I have brought scientific arguments, you have brought conspiration theories. You are constantly misrepresenting what I wrote, so I hope everyone can figure out about you.
- verisimi 4y ago
  I'm saying that you are missing a major part of the discussion if you don't think about why and how science, politics and education play a role in why we do what we do. I'm not challenging your science arguments. I've only given examples to show how it is possible that science serves a governance agenda. That you don't think this is possible and can't apparently conceive of the idea or meaningfully engage with it, may tell people about you. Science is not sacrosanct. Applying the scientific method personally, verifying its claims is a highly worthwhile activity. Believing what you are told, not so much. And, what I've raised are not conspiracy theories. These are facts, but no, the media will not publicise the plans of the club of Rome (that created the idea of a climate change threat in order to mobilise the world against a perceived common enemy), the WEF, the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, UN, etc. These are powerful, unelected, corporate-funded, NGO-funded, governance institutions and thinktanks, that are planning our future. And the future is technocratic governance. Science will do what is needed in support. PS some club of Rome quotes: "The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome. "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome. "The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security." Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore's mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome. "I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world's first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world's central carbon trading body.