Why Do People Claim They Own “The Science™”?
Iain Davis
In a truly remarkable article, seemingly packed with anti-scientific claims masquerading as scientific rigor, Dr Jonathan N. Stea asks why people fall for “Fake Science News.”
It isn’t entirely clear what Dr Stea is talking about because he doesn’t give any examples, just some vague generalities about people having the gall to question “the Science™.”
For example, he wrote:
[. . .] health-related misinformation and fake news related to a myriad of scientific topics persist and spread…
OK, but before we can take Dr Stea seriously we first need to establish what “misinformation” he is referring to. What does Dr Stea consider to be “fake science news”?
A simple Google search can reveal a disconnect between the scientific consensus and particular pockets of public opinion on topics ranging from vaccine safety to the treatment of mental health disorders and from evolution to climate change.
Aah!
It appears that Dr Stea is suggesting that anything that disagrees with the alleged scientific consensus, on a range of scientific issues, is “fake science news.” Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that questioning the claimed “scientific consensus” constitutes “misinformation” in Dr Stea’s scientific opinion.
There is no such thing as unquestionable science. If something is said to be beyond question, or doubt, it is not science. Consensus is not evidence, and claiming it is evidence is just about the most anti-scientific statement anyone, or any alleged scientific body, could ever make.
Take the Canadian ScienceUpFirst Initiative (SUFI) for instance. Dr Stea proudly states that he is a coalition member of SUFI. The SUFI collective openly declares:
ScienceUpFirst is a national initiative that works with a collective of independent scientists, researchers, health care experts and science communicators.
For alleged “communicators,” accurately conveying the meaning of words seems to present a tricky problem for the SUFI expert collective. Just how “independent” SUFI scientists might be is certainly debatable because SUFI is a project of the Canadian government.
SUFI informs us:
Reaching a consensus about where you and your friends should eat on Friday night is not the same as reaching a scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is not a matter of opinions, preferences, or beliefs, but describes the body of evidence. [. . .] Scientific knowledge is built via continuous challenging, reexamination, re-testing, and criticism of other scientists’ work. It is only when scientists keep reaching the same conclusions, despite being challenged by alternative possibilities, that a scientific consensus can be reached. [. . .] While overturning the scientific consensus is possible, it is unlikely, as it would imply that the data, experiments, and conclusions of many were misinterpreted by the majority of experts in the field. [. . .] [O]nly experts in the field have the requisite understanding to debate the consensus. [. . .] [P]resenting only a few pieces of opposing evidence is not enough to invalidate the consensus
If we consider this statement in the context of science, it is partially accurate. Science does reach consensus through consistent, verifiable results following “continuous challenging, reexamination, re-testing, and criticism of other scientists’ work.”
On the other hand, the notions that “only experts in the field have the requisite understanding to debate the consensus” and the claim that “presenting only a few pieces of opposing evidence is not enough to invalidate the consensus” are completely and utterly wrong. At least from a scientific perspective.
Take epidemiology for example. Epidemiologists are the “experts in the field” but much of their work is based upon data analysis. So “nonexperts,” who are not “in the field,” such as statisticians, computer scientists, software developers and mathematicians are perfectly capable of questioning various aspects of the epidemiological consensus. As is anyone else who is sufficiently interested.
Asking questions contributes toward scientific rigour. Refusing to answer them doesn’t.
A theory only remains valid while it accounts for “all” of the evidence. If verifiable evidence is presented that contradicts the theory, then this must be accounted for by the theory. While this alone is “not enough to invalidate the consensus” on a given theory, if the further scientific research, consistent with the theory, cannot account for or invalidate the apparently contradictory evidence, then the scientific evidence suggests there is something wrong with the associated scientific theory.
Consensus is completely irrelevant in such circumstances. Only when the contradictory evidence is either discounted or explained by the newly amended theory can it be deemed worthy of genuine scientific consensus.
As Einstein famously said:
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
What SUFI and Dr Stea appear to be describing is “the Science™.”
The Science™ is a closed shop where only certain “experts” are deemed credible, usually by each other. Dissent from “the Scientific Consensus™” is actively resisted by non-scientific means. Censorship, personal attacks, denial, ridicule, refusal to debate and so on.
Ignoring scientific evidence, denying evidence exists—when it clearly does—applying made up propaganda labels to evidence, in order to marginalise or discredit evidence without examining it, refusing to discuss evidence and misreporting evidence—to deceive people into imagining the evidence is not relevant—are not principles found anywhere in any version of the scientific method. But they are found everywhere in “the Science™.”
For our purposes—exploring Dr Stea’s argument—we need to draw a distinction between “science”—based upon the principle of doubt, verifiable evidence and hopefully some eventual proofs—and “the Science™”—based upon certainty and consensus—which is much preferred by governments, intergovernmental organisations and the people paid by them.
In case you weren’t aware, the United Nations (UN) owns “the Science™.” Speaking at the WEF’s anti-disinformation panel, UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming outlined how the UN had partnered with Google and TikTok to rig their respective search results and told the enthralled attendees:
We [the United Nations] own the science, and we think that the world should know it.
Yes, the world certainly should know that a bunch of self-appointed technocrats not only believe they own science, their grasp of the scientific method is so pitiful they imagine it is possible to own science. Dr Stea seemingly shares the same delusion. He cites a number of other “researchers” who also hold similarly woolly views.
According to the UN’s Melissa Fleming, the Google search results for “climate change,” and related topics, lists UN and UN approved results because the UN has “partnered” with Google to ensure that they do. Searching Google for anything other than the UN owned “Climate Science™” is a mostly a waste of time unless you use advanced search operators and already have an idea what you are looking for. It isn’t really a search engine, more of a propaganda platform for the policy initiatives of the UN global governance regime.
Dr Stea considers that anyone who questions the “consensus” on “climate change” lacks the cognitive ability to form rational opinions. So people like Nobel Laureate Professor John F. Clauser and Nobel Laureate Professor Ivar Giaver, who stupidly question the “Climate Science Consensus™,” are idiots who believe “fake science news.” Presumably, the rogue academic Albert Einstein was also a blithering dullard as far as Dr Stea is concerned.
Questioning “the Jab Science Consensus™” is also the folly of the hard-of-thinking according to Dr Stea. For example, Dennis Rancourt phD is not a scientist because he can’t get a paper peer reviewed for love nor money and keeps providing the wrong kind of scientific evidence. For instance, by showing that the jabs may not be “safe and effective” after all but are, instead, potentially bloody dangerous.
The German scientists, who have independently corroborated Rancourt’s finding, haven’t got a hope in hell of getting their paper peer reviewed either. Such work is all a bit too much like science and not welcome in the annals of the Science™.
Dr Stea continues with his dubious claims:
[. . .] people who put more faith in their ability to use intuition to assess factual claims than in their reasoning skills are more likely to support conspiracy theories.
There isn’t a shred of plausible evidence to back Stea’s claim. But that’s OK because this is the Science™ and not science, which are two completely different things.
Stae’s “opinion,” about people he labels as conspiracy theorists, is based upon the worst kind of pseudo-scientific babble imaginable. Stemming largely from the woefully unreliable “science” of experimental psychology, the underlying alleged psychology, supposedly driving so-called “conspiracism,” is found in a body of “the Science™” that is best described as anti-scientific junk.
The alleged “Scientific Consensus™” on the definition of a conspiracy theory—which isn’t remotely scientific—is that it is any theory that questions the pronouncements of the “epistemic authorities.” The “epistemic authorities” are said to be:
[. . .] the distributed network of knowledge claim gatherers and testers that includes engineers and politics professors, security experts and journalists
Not all engineers, academics, intelligence assets and legacy media hacks are viewed as being part of the “epistemic authorities.” For example, the 1800 or so scientists, economists, engineers and other academics who signed the World Climate Declaration—stating that there is no climate crisis—are not considered members of the “epistemic authorities.” Only those who agree with whatever the State decrees—and funds—are welcome.
This is exemplified in the psychology meta-analysis paper cited by Stea. He claims this paper goes someway toward explaining why people fall for allegedly “fake science news.” The paper states:
[. . .] the low levels of factual and epistemic knowledge [. . .] would be less disconcerting if large proportions of nonexpert audiences would routinely defer to scientific judgment and make policy choices that are consistent with evidence-based consensus within the scientific community.
So there you have it. Just believe whatever the State approved epistemic authorities tell you. If you don’t agree with “the Scientific Consensus™,” no matter how well qualified you might be, you lack epistemic knowledge—you’re a bit thick—and you are a conspiracy theorist—meaning you are both stupid and psychologically deranged.
Dr Stea continues to ramble on:
While individual-level factors can help explain why people fall for fake science news, it is impossible to understand the complexity of this problem without situating it in its social context.
Perhaps so, but nor is it possible to identify any “fake science news” problem in the first place if your only criteria for calling it “fake science news” is that it contradicts some sort of fictitious Scientific Consensus™. It seems that what most of us call “scientific debate,” Dr Stea calls the “fake science news” problem.
Dr Stea is a friend of Dr Peter Hotez. Therefore, given Dr Stea’s opinion about the anti-scientific sanctity of the “Scientific Consensus™,” and in light of Dr Hotez practically identical views, it seems the pair are in friends in agreement.
Dr Hotez’ scientific beliefs are overtly political. He calls the “fake science news” problem—identified by Dr Stea—“Antiscience™.” Dr Hotez defines Antiscience™ as follows:
Antiscience is the rejection of mainstream scientific views and methods or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories, often for nefarious and political gains.
We need to unpick this Science™ related vocabulary.
“Rejection” means presenting scientific evidence that questions the Science™. “Unproven” means that the epistemic authorities deny or refuse to acknowledge the offered scientific evidence and both “misleading” and “nefarious and political gains” means the presented and studiously avoided scientific evidence is incongruous with the social and political objectives promoted by “the Science™.”
In the bizarre scientific world of people like Melissa Fleming and Drs Hotez and Stea—which is more like the fantasy realm of wannabe dictators—the Science™ they “own” is closely tied to the policies favoured by the emerging global State. Only this Science™ is approved via the limited hangout overseen by the “epistemic authorities.”
Dr Stea wrote:
The spread of health-related misinformation and fake science news is not a trivial matter. When it comes to health, lives can be at stake.
Dr Hotez is more forthright:
Antiscience has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security, as much as do terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We must mount a counteroffensive and build new infrastructure to combat antiscience, just as we have for these other more widely recognized and established threats.
If you question the Science™ owned by Dr Hotez, Dr Stea and other members of the “epistemic authorities,” not only are you stupid and probably a conspiracy theorist, your are also an extremist—tantamount to a terrorist—who presents a threat so dangerous to “global security” that the questions you ask risk devastation on a par with nuclear holocaust. According, that is, to Dr Hotez and, presumably, Dr Stea.
You must not doubt their lunatic-fringe assertions because, like Anthony Fauci, they represent the Science™. Which makes them beyond reproach.
Dr Hotez echoes the global governance sentiments of the UN regime. The UN is practically obsessed with the “fake science news” problem outlined by Dr Stea. In particular, it worries that the public is losing “trust” in the diktats of the “epistemic authorities.” The UN addresses this is in its 2022 Information Mapping Report:
Access to quality information plays a critical role in public trust, democracy, peace and social cohesion. [. . .] As information becomes more accessible, it also becomes more open to influences from non-traditional actors in the infosphere — in most contexts anyone can create and disseminate information. As a consequence, the traditional actors and gatekeepers of information and news — established media and government institutions — are struggling to compete with this new reality.
The epistemic authorities are “the traditional actors and gatekeepers of information and news” whose role is to ensure we all unquestioningly accept the Science™. Dr Stea and Dr Hotez are aghast that “non-traditional actors in the infosphere,” i.e., the people, are even allowed to question the “gatekeepers” of the Science™.
They needn’t worry too much. The UN is among the “epistemic authorities” that are building the “counteroffensive” infrastructure, avidly promoted by Dr Hotez, to “combat” Antiscience™. The UN’s proposed International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes, better known as the UN Cybercrime Treaty, intends to make the sharing of information that “may have an adverse impact on States, enterprises and the well-being of individuals and society” a global crime.
If, for example, you commit the likely Antiscience™ thought-crime offence of questioning Covid jabs, you will undoubtedly fall foul of global “cybercrime” censorship and may face arrest and prosecution. The UN’s “partner,” INTERPOL, has already created its Global Policing Goals (GPGs) which includes efforts to ensure no one commits any “Climate Antiscience™” crimes, such as questioning the epistemic authorities’ climate alarm claims.
INTERPOL states:
We developed seven Global Policing Goals (GPGs) to address a range of issues related to crime and security. [. . .] INTERPOL’s Global Policing Goals are therefore aligned with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Among the UN SDG compliant ambition for INTERPOL’s GPGs is to “secure cyberspace for people and businesses.” To this end, INTERPOL has established “partnerships to secure cyberspace.” It has expanded its “cybercrime investigative expertise” in order to construct the “critical infrastructure” Dr Hotez claims we all need and must accept.
Consequently INTERPOL has formed some global public-private partnerships as part of its Global Cybercrime Programme. Among them is its partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF), called the “Partnership Against Cybercrime” (WEF-PAC).
Very much in keeping with the views of Dr Stea and Dr Hotez, The 2020 WEF-PAC report on cybercrime reads:
[T]he effects of cybercrime can be just as devastating as physical crimes, impacting numerous individuals and organizations everywhere. [. . .] We must create barriers to entry, such as raising the cost of engaging in criminal activities and the overall risk for cybercriminals. [. . .] Threat actors range from individuals, to loosely connected cross-national collectives. [. . .] Criminals use internet based infrastructure to uphold terrorism and drug trafficking, and spread disinformation to destabilize governments and democracies.
Consistently political, and supportive of UN goals to censor any and all dissent from gatekeeper accredited information, Dr Stea’s close friend, the “scientist” Dr Hotez, wrote:
[. . .] the Putin-led Russian government is working to destabilize democracies through elaborate programs of COVID-19 antivaccine and antiscience disinformation.
Drs Stea and Hotez share their fears about “disinformation” with the UN, the WEF and INTERPOL, who are all equally concerned about the public losing trust in the “epistemic authorities” that set the allegedly indisputable Science™. Dr Stea and Dr Hotez are evidently advocating a peculiar form of “science” based upon globalist policy objectives rather than scientific evidence.
It seems they demand that we believe whatever they tell us without question and suggest we should be punished if we have the temerity to question them as representatives of the Science™. Doing so undermines “trust” in governmental and intergovernmental institutions and is therefore verboten.
This, obviously, has nothing to do with actual science. Far from it, everything that Dr Stea and his friend Dr Hotez argue for is the antithesis of real science. It genuinely is anti-science.
Science does not fear debate because science is based on the objective evaluation of scientific evidence. Those who attack science, such as Drs Stea and Hotez, evidently do fear scientific debate because the Science™ they evidently peddle is either based on deliberately restricted scientific evidence or extremely questionable science.
This was underscored by Dr Hotez refusal to entertain a “scientific” debate on vaccine safety and efficacy with the lawyer turned politician—and layman—Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Dr Hotez is a “Gatekeeper Scientist™” who, as a member of the epistemic authorities, should have been able to run scientific rings around the “nonexpert” RFK jr., due to his superior knowledge of the Science™. According to Dr Stea at least.
Instead, Hotez declined and, unwilling to defend his Science™ in a public debate, he said:
In science, we don’t typically do debates. What we do is we write scientific papers [. . .] one doesn’t typically debate science.
Hotez’ excuse was abject anti-scientific dross. The scientific debate couldn’t be more important to science. It is only completely irrelevant in the Science™. There is no debate in the Science™ because it is based upon “the Scientific Consensus™” which cannot be questioned according to Drs Stea, Hotez and others.
Oxford Royale is an international academic feeder programme run as a partnership between Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College London, Yale and Berkeley universities. Seeking the next generation of “epistemic authorities” in their field, Oxford Royale comprehensively contradicts Dr Hotez and states:
Throughout history, even before the formal development of the scientific method, scientists debating theories and changing their minds once existing ideas were disproven has given us an ever-greater understanding of the world around us. And that process continues today. Within the scientific community, lively debates continue about questions from whether amyloid plaques cause dementia to what a healthy diet really looks like.
Sadly, so pervasive is the corruption of science by “the Science™” that Oxford Royale then repudiates its own statement and spreads “Official Disinformation™”:
Outside the scientific community, debates continue on manmade climate change, vaccination and evolution, even though the scientific consensus on these topics is clear.
Having acknowledged how crucial scientific debate is, these august academic institutions then categorically deny its value for the “theories” they unscientifically assert are beyond question. Such illogical, self-contradictory nonsense is another defining feature of the Science™.
Noble Laureate Professors, who questions the Climate Science™, are not “outside the scientific community.” Nor are phD scientists who question the safety and efficacy of the jabs.
In science, their views and their findings form part of “the body of evidence” informing all science. Excluding their papers and research, refusing to debate that scientific evidence, and idiotic anti-scientific presumptions about owning science, are only found in the unhinged, despotic Science™ of the politically motivated “epistemic authorities.”
So before we accept Dr Stea’s claims about the “fake science news” problem, let’s nail down precisely what he is talking about. Because if it is just anything that questions the Science™, there is absolutely no reason to give anything he has written any credibility at all.
You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or on UK Column or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Stea is just another self-serving malignant narcissist who is a paid propagandist.
I challenged him to a debate about the true definition of the scientific method and he ran like a scalded dog.
I think the Americans re the Bridge that was hit by a ship, are completely innocent. They did not do it on purpose.
You simply do not do that to yourselves.
I have enormous respect for some Americans. I have worked with them.
I also know what it is like on a much smaller sailing boat…in a hurricsne
dad – take over..I can’t steer this ship.
Do not dare leave this ship to try and get your new dinghy back.
It will cause a few problems for one of the American’s most impotant ports…
But they will have cleared most of the wreckage very quickly in the river and have the port of Baltimore back in Business soon.
My wife has not been well, for the last couple of weeks, but never claimed it was covid, nor the jabs (cos she hasn’t been jabbed)…She is OK now, and didn’t get SEPSIS, unlike this young girl and me who did…
I like to see articles like this – even in The Daily Telegraph which is a complete warlike abortion of anything containing any truth…I think the entire lot of them with the politicians should be lined up, and asked to explain themselves with regards to their support of mass genocide in Palestine and Ukraine and Covid Jabs
“Sepsis almost killed me in just 48 hours and one phone call saved my lifeI was a fit and healthy professional dancer, but within a few days I was in intensive care fighting for my life
Taz Hoesli 28 March 2024 • 6:00pm ”
I know what it is like Taz.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/conditions/cold-flu/survive-sepsis-symptoms-treatment-strep-a/
Thank you for posting this. You wrote it the way i feel, but I am 70 now, and its Spring and I am slowly rebuilding my life, and trying to get back to normal – graduakky with more exercise…doing stuff – like cleaning my car, and going to the shed. and clearing it about a bit…and dying my hair…For some obscure reason despite the antibiotics, I have got even more of it growing out of my head, and I aint going to get it cut. I do not look good pure white…so I asked her when she got back from the theatre what do you think?
She said give us a twirl.
Can I go out with you now?
Typo: “Dennis” should be “Denis”.
At least you are Tagged with one ‘n’, so maybe Iain was testing you, as to whether you really had read the article ? Who knows … ?
Science4Sharing.
Maybe he was not entirely sure, from memory, so simply hedged his bets, coz’ he couldn’t be arsed to check anything more, after completing a rather lengthy summary perspective: wanting your approval. He doggedly hit send, to you, to freely proof read & kill 2 birds with 2 ‘n’s & one stone thrown ?
But, yes, yer’ correct further up. So, what did you think of the article, otherwise ?
Iain’s salient trajectory & valid determination is highly significant in many ways & philosophically speaking, more Akin to the Chinese approach of ‘Two Cows’.
Humanity’s deal with science seems to have something of the Faustian (or should that be Faucian?) bargain about it…. made at the crossroads, hence their fondness for the ‘X’ (SpaceX, XR, The X Factor, the rebranding of twitter etc).
Most people would probably associate Faust with Goethe. There is of course nothing dodgy about Goethe – like his known membership of the Illuminati (code name Abaris) or the fact that he died on Skull’n’Bones day March 22nd (i.e. 3/22). In truth, Marlowe’s ‘Dr. Faustus’ predates Goethe by about two centuries – and there’s even more dodgy about him!
Faulty modeling is being used as settled science, exemplified perfectly by the CC models.
About as honest and transparent as the Biden crime family.
Just as the cover photo shares, where ever there is no live debate about issues that are in contention, there is secrecy, lies and totalitarian control of agendas. The FAKE SCIENCE NEWS is first that which comes out of their mouths and media that they refuse to debate in public. Essentially they are saying there is no debate. No, there is no debate ALLOWED. Go to any public meeting of any governmental process, like a City Council Meeting. US meetings do not allow debate and exchange with the public. They talk for as long as they want. You get 2 or 3 minutes where they sit there like a statue, or read their screens while eating cookies. There are no question and answer, ideas, debate or group problem solving allowed. Then they vote whatever they want, claiming they represent you. This is FRAUD. Republics without direct public input, debate, problem solving and recorded individual consent is oligarchy. This process of exclusion of the 99% to self govern is not just in government but extended to every facet of US society. Like “science” and technological deployments, the workplace, you name it. Authoritarian capitalism is god and religion..
I haven’t read this rant in its entirety, too fucking long (does Ian get paid by the word?), but I think that I got the gist. Let me weight in my two cents.
1) There is no doubt that science can be wrong, that it’s an ongoing process.
2) There is no doubt that science is misused, abused, and used to push all sorts of agendas.
However … putting a dent in science and research by resorting to some particularly convoluted argumentation in order to put a dent in science (freedom of information requests regarding viruses come to mind) is a) endlessly stupid, b) waste of energy, c) mostly counterproductive (because of the patent stupidity).
I’d wager to say that guys like Ian have done zero fucking scientific work in his entire life. He’s a windbag running off at the mouth about how science should be done, without ever getting his pecker wet so to speak trying to do so.
In other words, if all of the cretins who keep carrying on about this or that science being bullshit want to do something useful, they should hit the books, learn something, get in the lab, and produce a better theory than the one they’re disproving. Without that, they’re a just a bunch of killjoy naysayer assholes forever tossing the monkey wrench into other people’s work.
Preemptive renouncement: If you’re about to go on and rant about no virus ever being isolated and purified, kindly shove the bullshit back into the orifice wherefrom you’re about to pull it out. Neither I nor nobody else gives a fuck.
You sound like a scientist who has started losing it for the two points you mentioned.Next comes self loathing.Own it lad.
You sound like a fuckhead who’s never done nothing apart from telling others nay, no good, no cigar, try again.
Know what? Come up with something better or shut the fuck up.
A better theory.Ha ha he said , a better theory.Have you ever heard anything funnier.Back to the drawing board on gravity then.Evolution too and maybe germs.Genius.Own it lad.
We could have hours of fun with just this one post.
‘I’d wager to say that guys like Ian have done zero fucking scientific work in his entire life. He’s a windbag running off at the mouth about how science should be done, without ever getting his pecker wet so to speak trying to do so.’
Does Iain need to be an ‘expert’ or a ‘scientist’ – whatever that currently means these days – to understand that we are being lied to and misled?
Scientists with consciences and integrity are ostracized, smeared, starved of research funding and risk losing their jobs. So even if Iain or anyone else with these qualities decided to get their “pecker wet”, it would be pissing in the wind.
Do you have a solution to overcome a throughly corrupt system with any army of enablers such as scientists, medical professionals, lawyers, bankers, bureaucrats and so-called experts complicit in playing along to deceive and manipulate the public?
When a system is so infiltrated and staffed by cowards and those of low moral standing that it is rotten to the core, it is time to give up on said system including those people enabling it, by constructing a new one from the ground up.
The question is how to go about it?
Yeah.That’s what I was trying to say.
… but words got in your way …
If you care to read and understand what I wrote above, I wasn’t addressing all the ills of the world, but the fact that total nincompoops who have no idea about the applicable subject matter are ‘disproving’ scientific work by employing various idiotically convoluted methods.
As to your question, do I have a solution to going about it? Yes and no.
First. the system can’t be fixed. For many reasons. It’s too corrupted. Most people don’t want change. Etc.
The only way I see is getting the fuck out, living outside the system, and doing something better. Ideally in a different geographical location, but it can be done within the same territory. I’m more or less doing it. Hopefully, more and more people will join by exiting the system, to this or that extent, and the system will die by attrition and be replaced with whatever people create in the meantime.
Changes are coming no matter what, big ones. The industrial age will be winding down, as resources dwindle.
Also, beats me why somebody would get that hot under the collar about some scientific discovery, real or fraudulent. Why give a fuck? Because such science can be used against people? Simply insist on freedom, bodily integrity.That’s the right approach for example with fuckccination, not the halfwit bullshit about virus purification.
This has nothing to do with “science being wrong” but about a predetermined agenda using the noise “science” to push through political/economic/medical decisions that serve that agenda.
Then tell them to shove the agenda up their ass instead of carrying on about science for fucks sakes.
Sure. I’ll get on the phone to them right away!
If that’s the only thing you can think of, then go right ahead and do that.
Why do people like you derive your existence from the elites in the sense that you need them to acknowledge your right to do something or not to do it?
Have you ever considered living your life the way YOU see fit, if your self is capable of formulating something to that effect, without following somebody else’s script?
This is pathetic. Like the imbeciles who go to court to get a ruling that virus doesn’t exist and that the government is full of shit? Isn’t that fucking obvious?
The elites are the ones with the resources. They have the wealth and they own the media. It’s kind of hard to pretend that they’re not there. They don’t “acknowledge my right”. My rights are historically derived and I’m sure the elites are working to remove that. Since the elites also own the law courts this is again something of a problem.
Living my life “the way I see fit” means …. what? Ignoring the entire social formation around me? Is that what you do? Are you living in some kind of hallowed shelter above the community? If the crunch really comes and we’re all living in an actual full fascist state I don’t think that bragging about the size of your magnificent individualist cock will do you much good.
Pretty much, something like that. I’m not totally segregated from the rest of the world, but to a large extent.
If the crunch really comes, and come it will, then people will have to put up a fight, which means that they’ll have to forgo all the luxuries the elites grant them in exchange for keeping their mouth shut.
Invoking my alleged magnificent cock indicates that you suffer from some hangup regarding the inadequate condition of yours. Check out psychological projection phenomenon.
Progress!
I love how you end with a straw man. Saying viruses don’t exist is extreme… but saying that the mrna vaccines could have dangerous side effects (as other vaccines in the past) and that it is democratically and scientifically important to be able to report on these side effects is perfectly legitimate. Unless you are a shill, an ideologue, or a retard of course…
Kettle calling the (pristine) pot black …
I never said none of what you claim. All sorts of things have dangerous side effects, including fuckccines. Up to you to decide what to inject into your body. Report what-the-fucking-ever to who-the-fucking-ever you want. Why, I know not, but it’s your prerogative. Oh, I know why. So that some authority out there would determined that fuckccines are harmful and banned their use. Hmm … has it ever occurred to you that the decision to have yourself injected with some shit is up to you? You’re too fucking chickenshit scared to make decisions about your wellbeing? You need some scientists, whether fake or legit, to do that for you?
Retard? Fuck you, loser.
Is that you Dr. Faucci or Dr. Gates (D.Sc, MD)?
The thing that’s funny about idiots like you is that while you might have been somewhat right about one issue, namely the convid propagandemic, instead of subscribing to one orthodoxy, you subscribe to some other orthodoxy.
Get this through your thick skull. It is absolutely correct to question everything, such as scientific hypotheses and theories as per the article, but you also have to question your questioning. You have to continuously doubt and reexamine everything and be prepared to adjust your stance.
Most people frequenting this website and appending more less idiotic comments have succumbed to the orthodoxy that viruses are bullshit and that the satanic elites are after them and want to eliminate them through the kill shot. Toss in 5G, the fake moon landing, the abiotic origin of oil, Malthusian this or that, and the rest of the usual suspects. You keep regurgitating this horseshit over and over, in a rather masochistic manner.
Maybe you should apply the very approach you demand of scientists to your own fucked up head.
Having read and heard so many “arguments” debunking climate change, I can’t really disagree with your appraisal. (I’m not going to insult your intelligence, however, by offering you an Up Vote whoopie cushion to seat yourself on. But isn’t it interesting how a forum so hostile to elections in general loves to flex its own voting muscle?)
Anyway, it’s been my observation that virtually every argument against climate change boils down to “It’s a hoax.” There, see how easy Science is when folks put their minds to it? There is, of course, a monumental argument against climate change: the eagerness with which the petroleum industry covets every last inch of ground to drill for oil and gas. Why would, e.g., the US and Britain be so willing to murder millions of Palestinians to let the offshore fields be developed when they insist CO2 is killing us all? Just a bit contradictory, wouldn’t you say?
One thing is absolutely certain: we trust “experts” at our own peril.
Within the current era the reversal of vales means that plastic or weaponised words are used for factional gain within identity conflict. So while it is easy to critically reveal a lack of science in #thescience™ – it achieves little or nothing in terms of arresting the insanity of a ‘lie-based order’ in the appearance of arguments or ‘debates’ that are framed to divert, deny and deceive. Weaponised communication is by definition NOT a relational honesty but a war – both defensive and offensive.
Excepting of course in our own integrity as a basis from which to live from a different and truly grounded reference point – not so much in counter claiming, but in honouring the process through which obstacles to truth are revealed, and released.
Control of ‘knowledge’ requires that knowledge be made a commodity, regulated and adjudicated by trained professional bodies.
The means for this is the promotion of risk – or threats set in risk modelling that claims authority from bent and bought ‘science’. Bent science includes errors introduced by personal or collective bias of competitive pressures and the desire to win. Fame, career and funding are associated but money itself is not necessarily the driver. Bought science is ‘following the profit or funding stream’ which can be government framed but I use the term for the mask of philanthropy or philanthropathic research and development.
Everyone seeks self-interest in their own terms and those who have leverage to shape and order the world order are also well versed in PR – or presenting their security of possession & control in terms of social programs or narratives that leverage our insecurity and desire for leverage or protection from fear, threat or perceived evils.
But apart from bent and bought science is a deeper liability of a predicate in definitions that are set for the purpose of predictive control – and possession of the means to set such definitions is to in effect set models to ‘explain’ the mechanics of a world and of life viewed through such assumptions, FROM which technological applications are marketised or weaponised – without regard for truly human significance – EXCEPT as serves the frame of a mind set over and apart from life which is objectified to quantified physical determinants.
Need I say that this is all backwards?
But it is internalised, normalised and invisibly structuring our thought, perception and responses, not least via securitised narratives of incentivisations and ever ratcheting regulations by which to ‘technologise’ applied psychology – though I could call it psychic warfare on largely unwitting targets or indeed pharmed human lab-assets. It operates by projecting narratives to our own inner conflicts that we engage with by emotional reaction as a form of energetic consent. A more complex development of emotional manipulations that are learned from infancy and especially in playgrounds – masking as a means to Get, or masking as a means to Get away or masking as a means to get rid of inner-conflict onto an Other, This develops as social strategies and underlies our ‘social order’ – more than we like to think. Much of our ‘love’ is manipulative. Much of our hate is a need for love lacking a conscious means of articulation or reception.
On X is bang on the pattern of
Bought ‘science’.
Bent to frame risk in predefined terms.
Hyped to Media (and educative informational resources) as fear-threat.
Attracts priority and funding as mindshare or harnessed movements of social alarm.
Frames (ongoing) regulatory capture.
Establishes the basis for (predefined) countermeasures as treatments, solutions or ‘Wars on whatever’.
Assumes the basis for framing and funding further research and development – and by such starving any other lines of research and development.
Such as to use the failures of previous ‘cover stories’ as a dissociative driver to Models that no longer require empirical validation – because circular reasoning references previous lies as authoritative.
So in more ways that one tha Pied Piper of our time is en-trancing ‘the children’ to a virtual model and substitution for living participative relationship or Life.
The robotisation of human beings to mentally dissociated ‘humans’ meets the augmentation and replacement of an imaged ‘reality feed’.
We arrive at our beginning.
To know our starting place for the first time?
Intuitive recognition doesn’t break anything to see from an expanded and embrace.
“reversal of values”
If you intentionally exclude or ignore evidence, you’re not practicing science; you’re a fool, a liar, a mountebank, or a stooge. Or, maybe all of them at once, and maybe even worse. And, if this guy’s your Doctor, run, run away!
All the fuss about covid jabs, and both myself and my dearly beloved, who never had a single jab, still haven’t caught ‘it’. It will be like the moon landings and Kennedy murder where the media will never tell the truth about covid even decades later, as it would expose them as plain liars.
I blame the detectives who can’t solve these crimes.
More than likely the Baltimore bridge strike was truly an accident. But if TPTB decide to not rebuild it, then this link to the following brief report will expose a reason to be suspicious.
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/more-on-baltimore-bridge-strike
But probably just an accident.
The timeline for reconstruction is unclear, and Maryland lawmakers announced legislation to provide income support to the port’s 15,000 workers.
Hmm. I wasn’t aware the whole port wd be closed down– perhaps only temporarily til debris is cleared?
The bridge will almost certainly have to be rebuilt because it’s a crucial part of Interstate 695 which encircles Baltimore. Of course, it’s always had wind restrictions. As someone who had driven across that bridge for decades whenever I-95 was backed up, I can guarantee you there would be practically a revolution in Maryland if the bridge is not rebuilt.
Someone needs to enlighten the Science defenders that ALL Science is “fake Science.”
Every last bit of it is, as they say, “made of whole cloth.” It is pieced together and from the crazy quilt comes a conclusion which is declared to be “Science” by those officially designated to determine what is Science.
And the rest of society is expected to go “Ooh” and “Aaah” and give a standing ovation.
Your comment is only possible, because the scientific method developed computers and the internet. I comradely suggest you look into the meaning of philosophical materialism.
Stea and Hotez irrevocably btfo. Now do flat earth.
So we reach 2024 and mankind is still in a quarrel about the factual definition of Science.
Nonsense.
Science comes from the same universal human drive as religion. And as we have seen these past few years, it can be just as dogmatic and intractable as organized religion. How anyone over forty can take “science” as something other than a flawed human philosophy is beyond me, when our whole lives have been spent hearing constant nonsense like, “coffee is bad for you”, “animal fat is bad for you”, or anything else. The Science changes their minds constantly but not before they have sent heretics like me to the torture chambers.
It is a false religion composed of neat little tricks, that’s all.
Christianity cops much flak for granting humanity dominion over animals – but how often is it mentioned that Francis Bacon, the founder of moden science, stated that his aim was dominion over the universe? Doesn’t that sound just a tiny bit… totalitarian?
Bacon was lousy at actual science, he never discovered anything (like Einstein with his one patent for a girl’s blouse). What really cheesed him off was that it was the artisan class who were making the discoveries and that it wasn’t under the control of the elite like himself. See the Harkness book ‘The Jewel House’ for more on Elizabethan science.
Science remains a useful method but no way to view the world. Living things are not mere machines and cannot be fully comprehended by a study of their constituent parts.
Yes Edwige, the mechanistic view that ultimate causality can be discovered by looking at ever-tinier parts has always seemed futile. There used to be a lot written which argued that there is no Free Will since we are built of tiny particles that obey mechanistic laws.
But if new faculties don’t arise out of the ORGANIZATION of these faculties then how can even the faculty of vision be explained? None of the particles that make up the eye or brain are able to see, yet their organization produces vision– and Free Will.
However I don’t think science is necessarily mechanistic or reductionist. It’s a tool which is able to yield knowledge, and is much broader than the experimental method. Its breadth depends upon who wields it.
Off topic:
https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2024/03/28/fear-and-loathing-in-gaza/
Simon Elmer’s take on the curious difference in the way the latest Gaza genocide is being covered.
“As of 2023, nearly 30 per cent of Jews living in Israel were immigrants born in a different country, and that figure will need to rise considerably to combat the higher birth rates of Palestinians, which even the Israel Defence Forces can’t kill in sufficiently large numbers.
…..
I can imagine the Prime Minister of Israel and leader of Likud, Benjamin Netanyahu, using the war crimes of his government and military to draw more of that diaspora to Israel on the grounds that Jews are ‘no longer safe in the West’, as we’re constantly being told by the almost unanimously Zionist Western media interviewing Jewish celebrities in London and New York.”
More generally, the media is deliberately highlighting Israeli atrocities where the uncomprehending – because now completely programmed – psychopathy of Israelis is being belligerently shoved down the throats of the Western public as a steady process of habituating everyone to this new fascism.
Zionism is a brutalising brainwashing process – a kind of military training in civilian mode.
^^^^^^ New Simon Elmer just dropped! ^^^^^ Thanks George
Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton, MP and Master of the Mint.
“Newton had sought this position. The move to London and Parliament raised his power to dizzy heights.” — WikiPedia.
“Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of Men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a Special privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom.”
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence
The Fallacies of Virology and the Inversion of Natural Health – The Pasteurian Paradigm Still Fails to Deliver
“For those who are able to steel themselves against medical propaganda, it is abundantly clear that the Pasteurian paradigm has failed to deliver.” Not only has it failed to deliver, but has proven to be detrimental to us all time and again as we have witnessed during the Covid plandemic and the constant fearmongering and threats of “variants” showing that
“The sooner we get over the legacy of Pasteur’s fake science and get back to reality the better.”
CDC Redacts 148 PAGES Of Myocarditis Report!
Watch: Ecologist Allan Savory exposes consensus science: Peer-reviewed ‘means everybody thought the same therefore they approved it’ – ‘We’re going to kill ourselves because of stupidity’
“I turn my eyes to the Schools & Universities of Europe
And there behold the Loom of Locke whose Woof rages dire
Washd by the Water-wheels of Newton. black the cloth
In heavy wreathes folds over every Nation; cruel Works
Of many Wheels I view, wheel without wheel, with cogs tyrannic
Moving by compulsion each other: not as those in Eden: which
Wheel within Wheel in freedom revolve in harmony & peace.” — Wm.Blake.
Illustration by William Blake – Newton and Single Vision
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=198284
High res 1.8MB version of Newton by Wm.Blake:
https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk › objects-and-stories › newton-london
Isaac Newton in London | Science Museum
Portrait of Isaac Newton by Charles Jervas, 1717, London After just five years in the capital, Newton had become an influential political figure as Master of the Mint. In 1702 he completed a second spell as an MP in the House of Commons. .
Just when I thought the medical industry could not sink any lower, I find that it has been working hard to suppress the benefits of.. carbon dioxide, of all things.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/carbon-dioxide-climate-hoax-big-reveal/5850442
thanks for that, it’s a very interesting article and well worth reading for anyone with a suspicion that anthropogenic climate change is about as real as the deadly and ever mutating killer virus they attempted to scare us with in the dress rehearsal
The weather. Just so you have this very interesting information too.
Thanks Mgeo. Very informative article; I didn’t have a clue of any of that.
false ‘apeel’ (TM) to authority – is a logical, if not a biological… fallacy.
Check the source:
“The intellectuals will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want”
Vaccines are neither safe nor effective. Anyone still believing they are is under a spell. Hypnotised by liars and crooks and their own childishness (trust in authorities).
What, you mean in addition to being slow-kill or occasionally fast murder weapons?
Jonathan N. Stea is an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Dept of Psychology at the University of Calgary.
It seems to me that Dr.Stea has just about the highest possible academic credentials for writing a “remarkable article, seemingly packed with anti-scientific claims masquerading as scientific rigour,”
The people in that headline Demo have unfolded the most remarkable Logo I ever saw.
“Except for the time when a baby was cradled in a manger in Bethlehem, no event so entered the world so quietly or shaped the world so powerfully as Science has.”
Welcome to the Science Will Win Store The only authorized store for Pfizer branded material When science wins we all win. From t-shirts and jackets to baseball caps and tote bags, shop and share the Pfizer collection. The Science Will Win Store is the only authorized store for Pfizer branded …
“Science is bigger than any individual. It’s not a chest-beating campaign,” says Susman. “We’re humbled by the responses we receive. Every morning I get texts and emails from people describing their experience getting the vaccine or administering the vaccine, people crying, taking selfies, even praying while they’re being inoculated. It’s moving. ‘Science will win’ has become a mantra within Pfizer. We have masks and T-shirts that say ‘Science Will Win.’ We often sign off our Webex conference calls with Science Will Win. It’s lodged itself very deeply.”
Pfizer’s chief corporate affairs officer Sally Susman
The notion of possibility to settle science once for all was common in ancient and medieval scholasticism and in fact was borrowed by creators of modern science (based on philosophy of materialism) like Galilei or Descartes.
Such a materialistic concept of existence of unified mechanism of universe to be discovered analyzed and acquired knowledge settled as immutable was shuttered by Newton who after agonizing decades of crisis regarding his discovery of universal gravity, he could not intelligibly fathom, gave up on settled science and instead introduced modern concept of dynamically changing, never settled, scientific theory.
Since then Scientific theory no longer aims at discovery of universal reality (or whole truth) but to create mental shortcut, a human mind conceived narratives and judgments that fit to existing data or future data interpreted under subjective bias of the theory itself.
Such attitude recognizes unmitigated reality of always present scarcity of data and empirical inaccessibility of “natural law” . David Hume posited paraphrasing that “we don’t discover laws of nature but just events and sequences interpreted by human mind as rules with no guarantee to repeat themselves sometime in the future”. That position inherently rejects any kind of scientific consensus as a permanent measure of reality.
The hordes of young scientists including medical doctors are monkey trained in universities/Medical Schools to accept on faith and adopt unquestionably interpretative biases (meaning of data and metaphysics of metadata), resulting not from science but from hard fought among scientific community compromises, achieving commonly rotten, satisfying nobody interpretative judgment in a form of negotiated consensus presented to young generation as infallible dogmas, foundations of their respective scientific fields.
To add insult to injury to Soros foundation fanatics of global warming catastrophe consensus Karl Popper of Vienna School of Philosophy, a mentor of Soros put it blatantly paraphrasing “theory does not describe reality but provides mind concocted possible explanation of phenomena, good only until it is inevitably invalidated by new data and/or new interpretation of it ”.
The establishment of scientific consensus always means either lack of novel ideas among scientific community or abandonment of new research efforts by defunding.
I must confess that my own scientific career that overthrew consensus although in very narrow research subfield of physics started from my own PhD thesis where I inadvertently challenged veracity of few of my thesis advisor’s esteemed publications. Despite initially adversarial attitude to my findings I must credit my thesis advisor as he finally after few years saw my way when evidences supporting my thesis piled up and acquired predictive capabilities verified independently. It helped when he found his name as coauthor of some of my papers that stemmed from my PhD thesis’ research. I only wrecked tiny consensus and still I felt significant and long lasting animosity from some “established” scientists while avoiding open debate.
My life experiences proved that scientific consensus as any consensus is aimed and supported by scientists solely to funnel funding and defend their academic position and authority that assures such funding. And hence is always fiercely defended.
The vast majority of science, including “social science”, attempts to extend (or deflect from) capitalism or politics. Just look at covid science. If a paper survives beyond a year or two – is not contradicted or withdrawn for oligarchic reasons – it is usually rehash: “proving” another paper under local conditions.
Science used to progress “funeral by funeral”, but now, it also progresses by plagiarism, AI or the inclusion of the research supervisor as co-author.
Mgeo, I think it’s better to preserve the term “science” for actual science & to disrobe the lies by identifying them as propaganda. There is such a thing as legitimate science & to permit the concept to be lost is to declare the falsifiers victorious.
Isn’t it funny how the Science™ always has the highest price tag, to the extent that rights and freedom, democracy and our very humanity has to be sacrificed at its altar? It’s literally no better than the ancient ritual sacrifices to Teutatis, Erus and Molock–some would argue much worse!
human sacrifice was never abandoned, only rebranded…!
That’s because it has become an actual religion, and it’s commandments must be obeyed even if they seem to have turned into their direct opposite in less than a week.
Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth)
by Martin Durkin
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/20/climate-the-movie-watch-here
https://rumble.com/v4kl0dn-climate-the-movie-the-cold-truth-martin-durkin.html
Climate The Movie: Watch Here
1 week ago
This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, it is very clearly the case, as can be seen in all mainstream studies, that, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past.
Why then, are we told, again and again, that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘flat-earther’ and a ‘science-denier’?
The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism.
But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government.
This is the unspoken political divide behind the climate alarm. The climate scare appeals especially to all those in the sprawling publicly-funded establishment. This includes the largely publicly-funded Western intelligentsia, for whom climate has become a moral cause. In these circles, to criticise or question the climate alarm has become a breach of social etiquette.
The film was shot on location in the U.S., Israel, Kenya and UK.
The film includes interviews with a number of very prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics) and others.
Martin Durkin has produced, directed and executive produced hundreds of hours of documentaries and TV for broadcasters around the world, including Discovery, National Geographic and many others. The company he founded and ran was, for a while, the single biggest producer of shows for the Science Channel and Discovery Networks International. His various documentaries have won many awards and he has served on the steering committee of the World Congress of Science Producers, the Edinburgh Television Festival, and as a judge for the Bafta and Royal Television Society awards.
Tom Nelson is a podcaster who has been deeply examining climate debate issues for the better part of two decades. On the Tom Nelson Podcast in the fall of 2022, Martin expressed a desire to remake 2007’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, and that kicked off a successful effort to do just that. Many of the scientists interviewed in Climate: The Movie have done lengthy interviews for the Tom Nelson Podcast.
—
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(director)
Martin Richard Durkin is an English television producer and director who has been commissioned by Britain’s Channel 4. He is best known for directing The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007), which questions whether recent climate change is solely down to anthropogenic activity, and Brexit: The Movie (2016), which advocates for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
—
Martin Durkin: “I’d like to see the flowering of lots of ClimateGates”
Apr 23, 2023
Tom Nelson Podcast
Martin Richard Durkin is an English television producer and director of the 2007 documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle. As of April 2023, he is making a new climate realist movie.
00:00 Introduction
03:16 Bullying and death threats
06:04 Environmental “journalism”
08:34 Creating armies of Greta Thunbergs
11:26 Different kinds of anti-capitalism
14:47 Anti-capitalist rallies are against working people
17:11 Public sector people need and love problems
18:58 Costs of climate hysteria
20:01 The narrative behind the climate hysteria is always against individual freedom
22:12 Call for whistleblowers
25:07 This is the story of the age
The Great Global Warming Swindle – Full Documentary HD
The Great Global Warming Swindle caused controversy in the UK when it premiered March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4. A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be “the biggest scam of modern times.” According to Martin Durkin the chief cause of climate change is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun. Some have called The Great Global Warming Swindle the definitive retort to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Using a comprehensive range of evidence it’s claimed that warming over the past 300 years represents a natural recovery from a ‘little ice age’.
According to the program humans do have an effect on climate but it’s infinitesimally small compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures this way and that. From melting glaciers and rising sea levels, The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the myths, and exposes what may well prove to be the darkest chapter in the history of mankind. According to a group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you’ve ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we’ve begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin’s documentary slays the whole premise of global warming.
“Global warming has become a story of huge political significance; environmental activists using scare tactics to further their cause; scientists adding credence to secure billions of dollars in research money; politicians after headlines and a media happy to play along. No-one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardizing careers.”
Main contributors to the video:
1. Professor Tim Ball – Dept. of Climatology – University of Winnepeg, Canada
2. Professor Nir Shaviv – Institute of Physics – University of Jerusalem, Israel
3. Professor Ian Clark – Dept. of Earth Sciences – University of Ottawa, Canada
4. Dr. Piers Corbyn, Solar Physicist, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action, UK
5. Professor John Christy – Dept. of Atmospheric Science – University of Alabama, Huntsville – Lead Author, IPCC (NASA Medal – Exceptional Scientific Achievement)
6. Professor Philip Stott – Dept of Biogeography – University of London, UK
7. Al Gore – Former Presidental Candidate
8. Margaret Thatcher – Global-Warming Promoter
9. Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris, France
10. Professor Richard Lindzen – IPCC & M.I.T.
11. Patrick Moore – Co-Founder – Greenpeace
12. Dr. Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader – NASA
13. Professor Patrick Michaels – Department of Environmental Sciences – University of Virginia, US
14. Nigel Calder – Former Editor – New Scientist
15. James Shikwati – Economist & Author
16. Lord Lawson of Blaby – Secretary of Energy – UK Parliament Investigator, UK
17. Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Director, International Arctic Research Centre
18. Professor Fredrick Singer – Former Director, US National Weather Service
19. Professor Carl Wunsch – Dept. of Oceanography – M.I.T., Harvard, University College, London, University of Cambridge, UK
20. Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Centre
21. Dr. Roy Spencer – NASA Weather Satellite Team Leader
22. Paul Driessen – Author: Green Power, Black Death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
‘The Science’ has reached the position of the ‘Established Church’ prior to the Reformation.
The Reformation was all about rebel churchfolk calling the Established Church corrupt, unreligious, behaving in ways disrespectful to God etc etc. Schisms occurred, new religious movements appeared. It was the beginning of the end for the Establishment in many parts of the world.
As soon as you hear ‘only a select few can decide what is best for the rest of you’, you know you have a dictatorial cabal thinking that they are in charge.
They can say what they will, but only through the consent of the people can they impose it.
The best response to this nonsense is to ignore it, to refute it, to overthrow it, to elect opponents to it and to highlight the corruption endemic within it.
I see Fauci, in red-soaked robes, pinned to an inverted cross, speaking latin backwards. ( as if hedging novenas…)
It can be ego-deflating to realize everything you thought you knew
you learned from Marketing…(anon)…
it’s called being lost in the sauce… 😉
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RgnHBPQV5DNZ/
An extraordinary, charismatic edition of Joe Rogan Show. About statins and the big picture of medicine. Aseem Malhotra outspokenly identifies major players as psychopathic.
Calling on the public to save public medical services was a bigger in-your-face whopper. Barring the seriously ill and injured from hospitals, clinics and pharmacies was a crime against humanity.
Seems to me that a common BBC trope (perhaps some years ago) was a little more subtle than these: “Some scientists say …” … = IT’S A LIE or a a minimum “we’re starting a new PsyOp”
‘Scientists say’
*weaponised weather forecast*
Think Twice……You and Niko are running neck and neck for the best posts of all time. Please keep it up…..at this point both of you are saving my sanity or whatever is left of it at this point. Double Peace!!!!
“Without Imagination there is no Ownership !”…(anon)…
We have always had a Milkman. He brings our milk in 1 pint GLASS bottles and we give them him back to clean and refill.
Our Milkman has never failed to turn up, even in the depths of snow.
Our next door neighbour gets his Glass bottled milk too…like as his being going on for 100 years when our homes were built…
If there is nothing quite right, he will be the first to know.
He deserves an Easter Card and a Tip
That were the days.
Never tie your shoelace in a revolving door.
Of course they think they own science. They think they own everything.
They wrote a paper about it. They declared it so.
They agreed among themselves that everything was for sale. And for all that buying and selling happening, all things must be private property. Everything.
That’s how they took America.
That’s how they took the whole world.
They OWN it. They ARE it.
Private property is stolen property.
People should really think about this.
They may make a paper, an agreement, a law, that somebody now owns the Sun.
They are so crazy. Really: they are insane.
So they stole Science, among other things. Well, thieves steal. That’s exactly what they do.
But what they could only steal was the Name of Science. Real science can’t be bought. It can’t be sold. It can’t be stolen. It can’t be made into anything other than what it is: science. Science means Knowledge. And only truth is knowledge. If somebody knows a lie, he doesn’t know anything.
When they stole the name of science, they made that name into their idol. Their god.
So they worship the name only.
They have no idea what science really is. And they don’t know what they are doing. They are in Darkness.
The Light of Truth comes from Knowledge.
You’re wrong: they stole Science’s clothes. When they put them on, they thought OK ‘now we are ‘Science’, but they are not. They are just thieves who stole some clothes. A row of pens and an old lab coat.
Well conventional thinking does say if you buy it you own it.
As the financial syndicates have bought off every branch of so-called science, so-called medicine, so-called education, so-called journalism and so-called everything doesn’t this mean that in fact they do own it.
Until that plantation system is overthrown expect more of the same from the professional liars that encompass all facets of the rotting carcass that is “The Science™.”
one can buy it, yet you really dont own it, until you pay for it.
There is something going on, I do not understand (beyond the normal levels of funerals) of people my age (70) which I could reasonably expect), and i am not talking about kids in their 20’s – and their funerals – do you want me to cry again?
Someone is still alive..Me actually . I was very close to death in hospital when 69. 6 months ago…
But its Spring Now. I admit I have been hibernating over the winter whilst recovering from SEPSIS…but I have much more energy now and am trying to demonstrate that I am almost back to normal.
Maybe something Really Good is about to happen.
So I have not only fixed loads of stuff, cleaned my car from the deepest levels of sticky leaf shit – I am going to blow the rest of the shit off tomorrow with the jet sprayer .and the green moss between the paving stones…and maybe walk down the pub
I suspect they think I am dead. Not me yet.
I am better.
“Dead Can Dance”
“Baraka – Dead Can Dance – The Host Of Seraphim [HD – 1080p]”
What a wonderful video, thank you!
If you’re still living, here’s a poem for you, as for everyone who’s still living:
*
Injustice is taking it all in in its stride
Oppressors are preparing for the next ten thousand years
The powers that be keep telling you: everything remains the way it is
No-one dares raise their voice, only that of the ruling class can be heard
And exploitation is shouting it out to the markets:
“I’m just getting started”
But these days many of the oppressed are saying
We can never get what we want
If you’re still living, never say never!
What’s set in stone isn’t set in stone
And things won’t stay as they are
When the rulers are done speaking
Those being ruled will speak up
Who dares to say never?
Who is to blame if oppression persists? We are.
Who is to destroy it?
We are just as well.
Rise if you’re being oppressed!
Fight if you’re lost!
Who can stop those who have realized their predicament?
For the defeated of today will be the winners tomorrow
And “never” becomes “today”
– Brecht: In Praise of Dialectics
Thank You for your poem especially
“If you’re still living, never say never!
What’s set in stone isn’t set in stone
And things won’t stay as they are
When the rulers are done speaking
Those being ruled will speak up
Who dares to say never?”
My girl and me have travelled the world a lot, including India 4 times.
The video by Dead Can Dance is by Brendan Perry and Lisa Gerrard. They met in Australia.
Just before covid, we queued up outside the Hammersmith Odeon just my wife and me , like we had done numerous times before, for many years to see mainly Rock Bands…
But this was different..we made friends instantly in the queue – and us couples took photos of each other passed each other our mobile phones – just to prove we were there.
There was something Spiritual about it, which we knew but couldn’t quite explain
A reasonable inference?
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/reasonable-inference
Reasonable inference means “conclusions which are regarded as logical by reasonable people in the light of their experience in life.” [Lannon v. Hogan, 719 F.2d 518, 521 (1st Cir. Mass. 1983)]
https://goodsciencing.com/covid/athletes-suffer-cardiac-arrest-die-after-covid-shot
So we are today back to normal.
Why bother about the past and the dead when we can enjoy our dollares of today?
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had… Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
– Michael Crichton, Lecture at the California Iinstitute of Technology, Pasadena CA, Jan 17 2003
And then they killed him. Nov 4 2008, after he wrote ‘State of Fear.’
His ‘climate oeuvre.’ Specifically NGO corruption. Read it and weep.