Some pure speculation. From my vantage point as someone who came in thinking he was a lefty, the MFM is seemingly half-co-opted by those of the right that want to defend legacy energy. Not really knowing who the real players are I suspect some powers to be have positioned themselves to make a killing in the transition to green energy. I suspect they have money on all sides but seemingly are in full control of the Democratic party. I think seeing this new faction make moves has had old energy think tanks adjusting and deciding to take shots they weren't taking before at big pharma who I guess is on the other side of this. So we're getting the likes of Candace Owens and Tucker conceding and affirming MFM points but also looking to make hay against climate science while they are at it. Curious what others make of this as clearly things are getting shaken up a bit.
I think the right is definitely pro legacy energy and anti government control. Which is I think why those on the left are more environment but also more likely to be pro virus and vaccine. So I don't fit in either!
"Though really, considering the urgency and the rising temperatures."
That's "their" words. Their agenda driven propaganda. And all laden with fear of... something or other... whatever people get whipped up about these days.
There is no "boogeyman."
It's all in your head.
The magi are good (though not that good) at coming up with schemes to bamboozle the herd into running this way and that, losing their shit over nothing, time and time again. But they never learn. So why not throw another scheme at them. See if it sticks this time.
The whole Globbly Wobbly religious claptrap is probably the biggest scam of all time... cooked up by the Club of Rome crowd... spread around by Greta's great uncle... and championed by Al Gore and associates of all people.
There is no real science behind any of this claptrap. Ask the nitwit at Imperial College London if he really believes his own computer model projections for the next hundred years. The same guy that cooked the numbers for Convid -- another scheme that almost topped the original.
At this point... I don't accept anything coming from "experts" especially government appointed high priests and corporate lackeys.
I don't worry about any of these issues. I just follow my gut instinct and get on with my personal life. There is nothing that humans can do to mitigate any changes in the climate. By far the largest inputs are natural, so we should just stop talking about any silly notions of reducing this or that activity. Our inputs and outputs have changed over time based on technological advances, but it's readily apparent to anyone paying attention in the present that our existence can change radically at any time. Economic collapse is likely. Mass die off is likely. And even if things pick up again at a later date, and we manage to solve some niggling issues with energy, meat consumption etc it won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things. Nature will continue unabated... until it too dies out for good.
Yes they are 'their' words, so why aren't we banned already from eating dead meat or flying or driving like the conspiracy says we will be?
I think Al Gore's predictions of 5 feet sea rise come from articles saying if so and so happens then this could happen, they weren't predictions of serious scientists. Sea levels have in fact been rising since the last ice age, they then levelled of and the rate of increase is now rising again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNkVGiSgOM4 but Al Gore was defiantly using the environment for political ends.
I disagree, I think there is actual science, though of course nutters too. But that wasn't what my post is about. It's about the basic non-scientific crap that I hear.
I agree that the scientific method and accurate assessment of evidence should be applied, but that's not what we've been fed. I agree with climate scientists that look at the long view and the historical evidence proving that we don't need to "influence" the climate ourselves for it to do it's thing and no amount of atmospheric spraying or bombing volcanoes is going to bring things back into the Goldilocks zone that we have arbitrarily set for ourselves because we deem our activity more important or sustainable than other natural processes going on on this planet.
Obviously change happens in the natural world and we are still very much part of that equation. The artificial construct that we're so proud of is still heavily tied to and dependent on all the natural processes that are beyond our control.
An example of the current hubris leading to astoundingly authoritarian policies is the rampant forcing of all to jump on the "renewable" and horribly intermittent "green" energy bandwagon complete with rammed down our throats propaganda that EVs will save us from heat death in a hundred years time!
That said, the need for urgency to light a fire under people's arses has inevitably brought the deadline forward. It was twenty years away. And now perpetually ten or even two or three... whatever gets the heart racing and idiots gluing themselves to paintings.
Any serious analysis of our predicament will reveal that we are 100% dependent on "fossil fuels" for now. There is nothing that replaces this source of energy for the worlds transportation needs. There is no plug and play replacement on the horizon, no matter how many hype articles the tech magazines pump out to maintain hopium levels.
The current policy directive to inject, sterilize, maim, and kill the general population of soon to be useless eaters and obsolete work units makes absolute sense if you sit atop the world looking down on the farm and you are the farmer assessing your "investment." There is no more blood to be squeezed out of this stone. Time to change to game.
And the awakened folk have similar ideas but from a different perspective. They believe that they can detach from the system and create their own bubble of existence away from the big, bad bully or that we can alter the system itself and shape it to our will.
There's just one thing... any attempt to derail the current trajectory will result in mass death. Most of the world is entirely dependent on the systems that have evolved along with civilization. Trying to make cuts now is plainly suicidal. By far, the best option that the central banks had on the table was to keep this train going for as long it held together. Had they tampered earlier it would have collapsed earlier and probably with a little less fallout, but here we are, people got a reprieve, and now they'll have to face the music with ten times the damage. It was a tough call.
My point is... it doesn't matter anymore what the science is... on any topic. We've already crossed over into endgame territory. It'll be a bloody miracle if governments can hold together for very long especially in developing nations and the EU. And even the big energy producers will suffer severe setbacks when demand goes down and supply chains break.
Again... I really hope some magical fix materializes just in the nick of time, but just knowing that infrastructure changes and new technology adoption can take decades is a sobering thought to keep in mind.
And that's why I'm not worried about the climate issue or other boogeyman distractions. They are there to cover up the fact that we're going to crash and the solutions that are currently being put forward help speed up that outcome.
I absolutely agree with, what I think you're saying, which is that we're doomed whatever we do. It's endgame.
I don't even hope there is a magic fix in the nick of time. I hope our expression of life known as Homo sapiens becomes extinct, mostly because of how we've treated other expressions of life.
Yes governments will collapse, I like how you say the developing nations and the EU, both pretty much controlled by the US! BRICS will soon detach perhaps they will have a chance, it'll be up them anyway.
I am only post about the science, and I only care about it, because I love it, and it annoys me so much when it's abused and misused.
I'm not worried. I use oil. I've not cut down on anything. Yes, they can speed up the end with other solutions; of course spraying, bombing volcanoes (I hadn't heard about that) and carbon capture will be an unmitigated disaster, we can't consciously undo the damage our consumption has done to the small environmental window that we can survive in. Just like all medicines and gene therapy we're dumb even to think that we understand the interactions at play. But while I'm still here and have the capacity, I'm going to set the record straight as I see it on the scientific method and evidence for anthropogenic climate change vs propaganda that it's been debunked.
OK. I get it. TBH I'm at the point where I'm just waiting to see what happens next! I gave up on humanity fixing itself during the convid spectacle. It became clear to me then that the masses are biological robots that can be manipulated to do great things or run off a cliff. If we can't live gently on the Earth and get along with each other then I agree... there's something wrong with us and Nature will self correct at some point. Que sera sera.
One cannot discount the affects of HARRP and geoengineering causing some of this climate scaring of the people. Particularly with Biden and now the EU announcing they will start 'dimming' the sun with solar geoengineering projects. Create the problem so that the government can step in with a solution- and grift money off of it.
We've had increasing levels of solar dimming proportionate with increasing numbers of commercial flights for quite some time now. It really isn't a big deal. Government mandated projects are just more ways to fleece the gullible public.
It’s good that we’re hashing this out here in a friendly and information-giving way.
The climate people (the ones pushing the fear) have been wrong with all their predictions since the 1960s. They’ve been alarmist all along. I’ve come to realize that when someone pushes fear at us, they are part of the propaganda crowd. And when someone is just sharing their fear, their buttons have been pushed, which is the aim of the propagandists. They want us trapped in a fear-indifference tug-of-war.
I spent years agitated about the climate, but I’ve heard so much that all I see now is another totalitarianism push.
They want our pizza ovens, our ice cubes for cocktails, the gas burners, the washers, our heating systems, our combustion engines, the land of the Dutch farmers… They took our straws, but these past few months I’m enjoying decent straws again and no more talk. It seems they want us to feel threatened and deprived with no safe haven.
And they want division in the anti-corona and ant-Ukraine crowd.
I mean... I can probably live without the plastic straws... if I work on my will power but... nah, just kidding... I don't actually use them... or pizza ovens... or ice cubes... and the other things on the list very sparingly.
I'm a minimalist monk by any standards. If the rest of the population followed in my footsteps there wouldn't be any of the above, there wouldn't be a toothbrush because of this thing called "economies of scale" necessary for mass production.
And the total reliance on cheap to extract energy (fossil fuels for now) must keep going otherwise everything we rely on grinds to a halt.
"The increase in carbon dioxide and other gases caused by human activity has led to the global temperatures rising."
Has it though? Being the stubborn skeptic that I am, I dont think that is actually true, and many intellectuals have challenged that statement (which is a conclusion coming from the sCieNce™️ - so also hard for me to believe it because its the mainstream narrative).
Yeah you would be right to be skeptical and I know that many people have challenged it, though there doesn't seem to be anything in what they say.
Loss of pollinators, species extinction, increase in landfill, massive exploitation of other species and the developing world are also part of main stream science and narrative but they're undeniable. Everyone has a problem with carbon and temperature for some reason.
The issues you note are all real and should be addressed and mitigated/resolved. Yet somehow all environmental conservation and protection has been reduced to the “net zero” CO2 equation. This is both absurd and tragic because it obfuscates and ignores these real issues and it places the blame on people that are simply the end users of technology and systems available to them.
The reason for the focus on CO2 is simply because all human activity can be assigned a “carbon” cost or footprint, which is how the squeeze is put on the individual. Combine the tracking of all activities with programmable CBDC and total top-down control is possible. Meanwhile, factory farming, poisoning of land, air and water, and our bloodstreams just continues unabated.
I second all that Tsubion says, but would add that I agree humans do have an overall negative impact on the earths general environment, and this is not something that gives me any pleasure. But the real problems in this world are politics, greed and psychopaths. The environment will do what ever it does.
I'm coming to think that the problem that is making the environment less habitable for humans is capitalism; in order to make a living in many jobs there has to be continued profit. This comes from the never ending expansion of markets and the relentless extraction of finite resources. Thus the rich end up with the way more than they need and the poor with way less.
This is an extremely complex discussion, but ultimately, I agree with you. How we get from where we are currently to a system of less materialism, more community, more liberty and much much less government is something that is never far from my mind
In the 70s they were on TV mongering about global freezing.
Until 3-4 years ago I was taken by the news that there was man made global warming, now I know its part of the NWO end game to control the world. Temperatures rising where you live does not mean it is caused by human activity. And while pollution sucks IT IS NOT warming.
1. The sun is the major cause of climate changes not greenhouse gas.
2. Greenhouse gasses are water vapor 90%, 5% Co2 (don't hold me to exact numbers)
3. Over the millennia when the sun causes temp to rise Co2 rises 800 years later. Temp ALWAYS rises first. The Co2 in the rocks in the oceans is coming out, just boil a bunch of rocks on your kitchen stove and measure the Co2 in the vapor.
4. Global warming started BEFORE the industrial revolution in the early 1800s after the Mauder solar minimum was over.
5. Since 2020 we are now in a solar minimum said to get quite cold above the 33rd parallel by 2040.
6. Take the term “Global temp” with a grain of salt, this can be manipulated by where and how it’s measured.
7. There was a Climate gate 1 and 2, how many of you heard this bombshell info? Right, it wasnt on the news. The “scientists” admitted in emails they fudged the info.
Hiya, the 'climategate' emails that Corbett (who often gets the wrong end of the (hockey) stick) refers to alleged fudging of data and conflates two separate issues; mike's trick and hiding the decline in an email by Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia. Mike's trick is simply the ubiquitous technique of using reconstructed temperatures from ice cores and tree rings with actual thermometer measurements on the same graph. The decline referred to is not a decline in temperatures but rather a decline in tree ring thickness which should have correlated with the rise in thermometer temperatures, but which diverged in the 1960s due to local pollution in some areas. It has been publicly discussed since 1995. in 2009 stolen emails were investigated; yet 9 independent studies showed that nothing affected the science. Conspiracy theorists were disappointed.
The 1998 hockey stick of Micheal Mann is not an illusion or a fudge, the first critique was from Steve McIntyre who claimed it contained statistical flaws, but the stick has been reproduced many times. in fact the latest data from 60 institutions around the world strengthens it, which conspiracy theorists like to ignore.
Yes solar and volcanic activity affect temperature. It should be getting colder if we weren't warming it. When solar and volvanoes are taken into account co2 and temperature are tightly correlated. In the last few decades the sun has cooled, yet the temperature has risen. It was predicted that winters and nights should warm faster than summers and days if humans were warming the planet not changes in the sun. This is what has happened.
The vast majority of scientists in the 1970s predicted warming only a small number of papers predicted cooling. This is OK.
co2 rises after temperature rises (due to changes in orbit) because the warmer sea releases co2 but that doesn't mean that co2 can't cause warming too. In fact the extra co2 caused extra warming in a reinforcing feedback. The lag doesn't disprove warming is caused by co2 but rather reinforces evidence of positive feedback. It is a false dichotomy to have to chose between 2 options both of which are true. Increases temperates increase co2 and increased co2 increases temperatures.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas but doesn't cause the initial warming it amplifies it because the amount of vapour in the air depends on how warm it is. Yes carbon is a small percentage of the greenhouse gases but that doesn't mean its effect when amplified by water vapour is not large. Water vapour is a big reason the climate is so sensitive to co2 warming. small amounts of things can have big effects eg trace minerals, arsenic and alcohol in the body. And just a few degrees temperature will make a huge difference to humans way of living even if it doesn't kill us straight away.
ok thanks, honestly I'm not climate "deep diver" and dont have a compilation of documents to argue from. It is clear that the biosecurity state is merging with the climate security state and financial security state ala the NWO, and anything they are behind is always an occult manipulation of logic. Lets leave it here, appreciate your time in reply and others can take it up as I say, I'm still surface swimming on it. The people all pushing it fly in private planes and are absolutely full on NWO secret society people, it was started and pushed at the same times as all the tyranny since 9.11 and was a brainchild of the Club of Rome if I am correct, and they are clearly using the climate story as an agenda to restrict our entire lives.
Anything started by the Club of Rome is an absolute evil as plan to take over the earth:
I was skeptical too but I knew that a lot of what was said about animal agriculture was wrong so decided to deep dive on climate. Thank you for your questions it really helps.
The richest 1%, who are both causing and pushing climate change, are clearly having their cake and eating it. I don't think industry will ever restrict its profits though. And any alleged plan to control doesn't mean what's happening in front of my eyes isn't happening.
And as far as the elites we always refer to, they are Westerners whose fortunes will go down with the dollar. They won't be controlling anyone for much longer let alone the whole world.
And now I'm very suspicious of a conspiracy to control us and wonder where it's coming from, if the end result is support for the industries of the elite 1% who are allegedly trying to control us!
- The global average temperature is a meaningless measurement -- it's like asking about the average colour of a cat (brown, right... do you see a lot of brown cats?)
- I mention that because it means that *all* global warming data from before about 1980 is *completely* meaningless -- no one was even *trying* to measure it. There was no grid-spaced network of thermometers in northern Manitoba in 1962...
- The 'splicing' of data, via Mann, is... horrific. Ice cores/tree rings might be viable proxies for local temperature... but there are *absolutely none* of those things in the ocean, so they can't possibly work as a proxy for *Global Average Temperature* data.
- Also, I doubt, although I may be wrong, that Mozambique or Cambodia are actively engaged in shoring up the 'ice core' data to substantiate global warming... is there even ice there? I don't see it in Cambodia...
- 'Hottest Temperature' is a bit of a misnomer. In the old days, we used mercury thermometers, which had a natural lag-time. Now it's platinum or some-such, so we get instantaneous readings which means we measure higher highs, and lower lows.
- Global warming data rarely presents 'error bars', and can thus be thrown out summarily.
- The assertion that H20 doesn't 'cause' global warming is completely disingenuous (on the part of NASA, not you). Freeman dyson (!) himself pointed out that climate models based on CO2 could not *at all* reproduce the observed 'warming'. So Hansen (etc) introduced a 'feedback' with H20 based on... 'computer models... Remember the 'models' telling us how many people were going to die of covid... yeah, same sort of 'models'
- Also, consider that we have only a vague idea of Cloud Physics. Yes, water vapour will augment heat-retention, but... if the vapour forms into clouds, it will make the earth more 'white', and thus reduce the amount of incoming heat. (see Richard Lindzen, for example)
- While the sea levels do seem to be rising, it's only about 7 inches/*century*. So basically we just need to move 10 dutch families into every coastal nation, and everything will be fine!
- The 'frightening' cases of ocean rise are invariably due to either 'subduction zones' or other factors that are causing the *land* to sink, not the oceans to rise.
- Extreme weather is... not a thing. We have excellent data on hurricane strength, for example, in the USA, which shows *no* correlation between 'temperature' and extreme hurricanes.
- In terms of agriculture, two of the most fertile wheat-growing areas in North America are Kansas and Saskatchewan... I've visited/lived in both and... well, there are more than a few degrees of temperature separating them! So no, wheat production is not going to suffer from 'global warming'.
- This one is the toughest: 'royspencer.com' (a professor at Alabama-Huntsville) has been collecting satellite data on 'global average temperature' since 1979 -- so 40+ years of a *consistent* data set. If you look at the data expecting an *increase* -- you'll find it, at about 1 degree/Century (!!). BUT look at the data as a correlation. There is NO meaningful correlation between the temperature and the (monotonically increasing) CO2 data. I mean *nothing*... okay, maybe r^2=0.05.
- There are vast swathes of time -- up to 20 years -- where there is *no* increase in temperature... This is completely inconsistent with the CO2 model of heat accumulation.
I could go on... but suffice to say that there is *no* science in Global Warming. It's just a bunch of venal, horrible virologists (sorry, Climate Scientists) helping to destroy the world because they were too worthless to actually build anything.
Leonardo di Caprio, the Hollywood champion, propagandist, and ambassador for climate change policy, building multi-million dollar resorts at sea level doesn't think he's made a bad investment.
He also made a documentary in 2016 with National Geographic, 'Before The Flood', where he met scientists, activists and world leaders to discuss the dangers of climate change.
“With the onset of climate change, there are huge challenges, so we want the structure to not only enhance and improve the environment, but to be a model for the future.”
Hi Tsubion, I think this argument is a bit weak. The sea level is demonstrably rising, despite Bjorn Lomborg pointing to tiny fluctuations in the level of increase. The graph from 1993 to 2018 is a 45 degree angle. However the y axis is in mm, rising 90 mm.. Di Caprio will have a least 30 or 50 years to get a return on his investment, easily his life time, and what does he care after that? Insurers may increase or cancel premiums nearer the time, but 50 years is easily the life time of a resort itself anyway. I would be much more surprised if he was building them in Florida which has a high water table, being built on a swamp, and already has a problem.
What rich people choose to do with their money, what they say and their hypocrisy doesn't prove or disprove that something is happening.
Yes, I know who di Caprio is, I watched Before the Flood and went to watch Titanic in 1997 in the UCI Whiteleys in Bayswater with my mates Jen and Clare from St Marys Hospital, drooling over his boyish good looks as our Baskin Robbins Rocky road ice cream melted.
You see... you can't have it both ways. It's either a problem or it's not. How much have these celebrity icons been paid to push this propaganda on the gullible populace for the last twenty years? As you quite correctly point out... they don't give a flying fark about CO2 or rising sea levels or "the science" of globbly wobbly. All they care about is their pay check and whatever their agent tells them to do to save face or keep those virtue signal points trending higher. And these are the characters that influence policy worldwide not the unknown scientists fudging the numbers on their laptops using dodgy inputs. A few millimeters difference in water levels here and there and the effects that may have due to local geographic conditions over the next hundred years is of little interest to the majority of people living on this planet... again, due to the reasons you point out... we have short life spans compared to the long winded story of climate change.
Even the temp readings are a joke and the fudging of numbers to continue this narrative should be ripped to pieces just like the fake pandemic nonsense and the now obvious fraudulent history of "the science."
This is not an argument. It's a nothing burger. There is no need at all to make any concessions to variations in climate because our world is always changing including our tiny impact for such a short time. There are no winners and losers on planet Earth. It's just life bubbling up like a fungus doing its thing until it dries out. End of story. On a human level, people will adapt to change or perish as they always have done.
To call out whether the "science" is more correct or less correct is avoiding the obvious elephant in the room that screams "psyop" all over again. And any time this happens, quite frankly the "science" takes a back seat because the main thrust of the scheme is to make everyone piss their pants, cough up their hard earned money, line up for jabs (to stop climate change), pollute the environment with ridiculously inefficient windmills and solar panels, and prepare hundreds of millions of EVs for the landfill along with all the windmill blades, suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to bury it underground, collect cow farts, and spray the skies to block out the sun.
You focus on the minutia of the "science" (which I believe is as deceptive and wrong as Louis Pasteur's "virology") while the rest of us call out the blatantly criminal activity surrounding the "science" based on fraudulent claims.
So just as I call for virology to be shut down until further notice I also call for climate "science" to be paused, put on hold, shut down until we can actually truthfully ascertain if it has any benefits at all other than perpetuating the current scams that have taken over the world.
Di Caprio used his own money, but paid for by who? Certainly not those with the power who are big oil and big animal ag/pharma who block everything at every turn?
I completely disagree with you about scientists fudging numbers.
Yes the whole mitigation and all of the schemes you mention will be a bloody disaster and terror. Just like vaccines are. Yes virology is a scam, but that doesn't mean that people don't get ill at all. They get ill from things like human-made pollution. The answer to pollution is clearly not vaccines. The answer to pollution is clearly not mad mitigation schemes. It's to stop polluting, mostly achieved by the climate hypocrites stopping flying in their jets. Ending up with the wrong solution that makes things worse doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
This whole thing rests on the idea of a conspiracy to control us into consuming less, I just don't buy it anymore. If that makes me gullible then so be it.
I don't see any of this as a "problem" that needs to be solved. I don't think human activity is a problem that needs to be curtailed. It will self correct when it's good and ready. Maybe we're already far along that road. Obviously when there were less of us and we were gradually shifting from goat herding to farming, industrial pollution was but a mere twinkle in our collective eye. Should we have snuffed ourselves out then? Prevented millions of deaths caused by toxic air in China every year?
I just don't see things that way. I'd rather we have cars and accept the consequences. I'd rather we build out the Internet and accept the consequences. I'd rather we put rockets into space and do whatever comes with that than go back to goat herding (which was devastating to the environment in itself).
I'm not saying all is lost either (although I am perceiving a greater signal to unplug from these feeds entirely and just focus on my fiction until further notice). Humans may eventually, at some point, if they're incredibly fortunate... outgrow their current, long standing condition of collective psychosis and extraordinarily incompetent belief systems... but I won't hold my breath.
Maybe AI can help recondition humanity into something viable, sustainable, more palatable. People are embracing change while others shun it. The systems that are able to survive (regardless of current ideologies and political biases) will survive if at all possible. Everything else will fall by the wayside when push comes to shove, when the resource wars really kick off.
Again, if we want to stop polluting, if you see pollution as a problem, then we all need to stop consuming, and if that happens most people would suffer total collapse and die. You can't rewind to some simpler way of life once everyone has become dependent on modern farming and just in time production of goods.
So the pollution shifted to China. That was the solution for the West. Beyond that, it could shift to a new location or China finds ways to mitigate the issues under their watch. I think the added costs of not polluting so much as we have been will put an end to this cycle of consumerism all by itself. And then reality will hit home.
Scientists have been fudging science since science began! Much of what we think we know is based on assumptions and I don't really put much faith in projections of any kind. I expect to be completely wrong about any projections I may have made up to now. We simply cannot know what comes next.
Hollywood, Big Pharma, Big Government are more tied at the hip than you may like to think. The sheer Lockstep powerhouse of propaganda projected by these institutions should be clear to anyone by now and yes... I believe celebrities gain favor and indirectly get paid to sell globbly wobbly nonsense and vaxxines.
Hi Tsubion, yes I think I see what you're saying. Nothing is problem it just is. If people want to exploit others and make products that they don't need or want then so be it. What will happen will happen.
I just chopped down half a forest today... by hand... well, quite a few pine trees, but it felt like half a forest. It's basically "weeding" but for trees. I would send you some but the postage fees are quite prohibitive.
Chainsaw oil feed is kaput! And the weeding machine konked out yesterday as well. And the car wouldn't start... I think Universe is trying to send me a message... but I always interpret them wrong anyway. Dragging and piling the wood is the tough part definitely. I'm basically providing entertainment for the tourists on their way to the local beach. Most of them have never come across a madman with an axe!
Some pure speculation. From my vantage point as someone who came in thinking he was a lefty, the MFM is seemingly half-co-opted by those of the right that want to defend legacy energy. Not really knowing who the real players are I suspect some powers to be have positioned themselves to make a killing in the transition to green energy. I suspect they have money on all sides but seemingly are in full control of the Democratic party. I think seeing this new faction make moves has had old energy think tanks adjusting and deciding to take shots they weren't taking before at big pharma who I guess is on the other side of this. So we're getting the likes of Candace Owens and Tucker conceding and affirming MFM points but also looking to make hay against climate science while they are at it. Curious what others make of this as clearly things are getting shaken up a bit.
I think the right is definitely pro legacy energy and anti government control. Which is I think why those on the left are more environment but also more likely to be pro virus and vaccine. So I don't fit in either!
"Though really, considering the urgency and the rising temperatures."
That's "their" words. Their agenda driven propaganda. And all laden with fear of... something or other... whatever people get whipped up about these days.
There is no "boogeyman."
It's all in your head.
The magi are good (though not that good) at coming up with schemes to bamboozle the herd into running this way and that, losing their shit over nothing, time and time again. But they never learn. So why not throw another scheme at them. See if it sticks this time.
The whole Globbly Wobbly religious claptrap is probably the biggest scam of all time... cooked up by the Club of Rome crowd... spread around by Greta's great uncle... and championed by Al Gore and associates of all people.
There is no real science behind any of this claptrap. Ask the nitwit at Imperial College London if he really believes his own computer model projections for the next hundred years. The same guy that cooked the numbers for Convid -- another scheme that almost topped the original.
At this point... I don't accept anything coming from "experts" especially government appointed high priests and corporate lackeys.
I don't worry about any of these issues. I just follow my gut instinct and get on with my personal life. There is nothing that humans can do to mitigate any changes in the climate. By far the largest inputs are natural, so we should just stop talking about any silly notions of reducing this or that activity. Our inputs and outputs have changed over time based on technological advances, but it's readily apparent to anyone paying attention in the present that our existence can change radically at any time. Economic collapse is likely. Mass die off is likely. And even if things pick up again at a later date, and we manage to solve some niggling issues with energy, meat consumption etc it won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things. Nature will continue unabated... until it too dies out for good.
Yes they are 'their' words, so why aren't we banned already from eating dead meat or flying or driving like the conspiracy says we will be?
I think Al Gore's predictions of 5 feet sea rise come from articles saying if so and so happens then this could happen, they weren't predictions of serious scientists. Sea levels have in fact been rising since the last ice age, they then levelled of and the rate of increase is now rising again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNkVGiSgOM4 but Al Gore was defiantly using the environment for political ends.
I disagree, I think there is actual science, though of course nutters too. But that wasn't what my post is about. It's about the basic non-scientific crap that I hear.
I agree that the scientific method and accurate assessment of evidence should be applied, but that's not what we've been fed. I agree with climate scientists that look at the long view and the historical evidence proving that we don't need to "influence" the climate ourselves for it to do it's thing and no amount of atmospheric spraying or bombing volcanoes is going to bring things back into the Goldilocks zone that we have arbitrarily set for ourselves because we deem our activity more important or sustainable than other natural processes going on on this planet.
Obviously change happens in the natural world and we are still very much part of that equation. The artificial construct that we're so proud of is still heavily tied to and dependent on all the natural processes that are beyond our control.
An example of the current hubris leading to astoundingly authoritarian policies is the rampant forcing of all to jump on the "renewable" and horribly intermittent "green" energy bandwagon complete with rammed down our throats propaganda that EVs will save us from heat death in a hundred years time!
That said, the need for urgency to light a fire under people's arses has inevitably brought the deadline forward. It was twenty years away. And now perpetually ten or even two or three... whatever gets the heart racing and idiots gluing themselves to paintings.
Any serious analysis of our predicament will reveal that we are 100% dependent on "fossil fuels" for now. There is nothing that replaces this source of energy for the worlds transportation needs. There is no plug and play replacement on the horizon, no matter how many hype articles the tech magazines pump out to maintain hopium levels.
The current policy directive to inject, sterilize, maim, and kill the general population of soon to be useless eaters and obsolete work units makes absolute sense if you sit atop the world looking down on the farm and you are the farmer assessing your "investment." There is no more blood to be squeezed out of this stone. Time to change to game.
And the awakened folk have similar ideas but from a different perspective. They believe that they can detach from the system and create their own bubble of existence away from the big, bad bully or that we can alter the system itself and shape it to our will.
There's just one thing... any attempt to derail the current trajectory will result in mass death. Most of the world is entirely dependent on the systems that have evolved along with civilization. Trying to make cuts now is plainly suicidal. By far, the best option that the central banks had on the table was to keep this train going for as long it held together. Had they tampered earlier it would have collapsed earlier and probably with a little less fallout, but here we are, people got a reprieve, and now they'll have to face the music with ten times the damage. It was a tough call.
My point is... it doesn't matter anymore what the science is... on any topic. We've already crossed over into endgame territory. It'll be a bloody miracle if governments can hold together for very long especially in developing nations and the EU. And even the big energy producers will suffer severe setbacks when demand goes down and supply chains break.
Again... I really hope some magical fix materializes just in the nick of time, but just knowing that infrastructure changes and new technology adoption can take decades is a sobering thought to keep in mind.
And that's why I'm not worried about the climate issue or other boogeyman distractions. They are there to cover up the fact that we're going to crash and the solutions that are currently being put forward help speed up that outcome.
I absolutely agree with, what I think you're saying, which is that we're doomed whatever we do. It's endgame.
I don't even hope there is a magic fix in the nick of time. I hope our expression of life known as Homo sapiens becomes extinct, mostly because of how we've treated other expressions of life.
Yes governments will collapse, I like how you say the developing nations and the EU, both pretty much controlled by the US! BRICS will soon detach perhaps they will have a chance, it'll be up them anyway.
I am only post about the science, and I only care about it, because I love it, and it annoys me so much when it's abused and misused.
I'm not worried. I use oil. I've not cut down on anything. Yes, they can speed up the end with other solutions; of course spraying, bombing volcanoes (I hadn't heard about that) and carbon capture will be an unmitigated disaster, we can't consciously undo the damage our consumption has done to the small environmental window that we can survive in. Just like all medicines and gene therapy we're dumb even to think that we understand the interactions at play. But while I'm still here and have the capacity, I'm going to set the record straight as I see it on the scientific method and evidence for anthropogenic climate change vs propaganda that it's been debunked.
xxxx
OK. I get it. TBH I'm at the point where I'm just waiting to see what happens next! I gave up on humanity fixing itself during the convid spectacle. It became clear to me then that the masses are biological robots that can be manipulated to do great things or run off a cliff. If we can't live gently on the Earth and get along with each other then I agree... there's something wrong with us and Nature will self correct at some point. Que sera sera.
That is my motto of the day now! Que sera sera. Yes Mother Earth will shake us off like a wet dog coming out of water xxx
One cannot discount the affects of HARRP and geoengineering causing some of this climate scaring of the people. Particularly with Biden and now the EU announcing they will start 'dimming' the sun with solar geoengineering projects. Create the problem so that the government can step in with a solution- and grift money off of it.
We've had increasing levels of solar dimming proportionate with increasing numbers of commercial flights for quite some time now. It really isn't a big deal. Government mandated projects are just more ways to fleece the gullible public.
problem, reaction, money-laundering...
;)
Catchy!
It's the "Hell Yeahl Gale, All-in, Dialectric"
Here here!! Well said, well explained. You hit the nail right on the head.
Thanking you. For all the shouting no one is anywhere near being banned from eating dead animals yet. Nor are they likely to be.
Hope all Ok xxxx
Hope all ok with you too 💜
It’s good that we’re hashing this out here in a friendly and information-giving way.
The climate people (the ones pushing the fear) have been wrong with all their predictions since the 1960s. They’ve been alarmist all along. I’ve come to realize that when someone pushes fear at us, they are part of the propaganda crowd. And when someone is just sharing their fear, their buttons have been pushed, which is the aim of the propagandists. They want us trapped in a fear-indifference tug-of-war.
I spent years agitated about the climate, but I’ve heard so much that all I see now is another totalitarianism push.
They want our pizza ovens, our ice cubes for cocktails, the gas burners, the washers, our heating systems, our combustion engines, the land of the Dutch farmers… They took our straws, but these past few months I’m enjoying decent straws again and no more talk. It seems they want us to feel threatened and deprived with no safe haven.
And they want division in the anti-corona and ant-Ukraine crowd.
I mean... I can probably live without the plastic straws... if I work on my will power but... nah, just kidding... I don't actually use them... or pizza ovens... or ice cubes... and the other things on the list very sparingly.
I'm a minimalist monk by any standards. If the rest of the population followed in my footsteps there wouldn't be any of the above, there wouldn't be a toothbrush because of this thing called "economies of scale" necessary for mass production.
And the total reliance on cheap to extract energy (fossil fuels for now) must keep going otherwise everything we rely on grinds to a halt.
And if that happens... it's machete time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj7fgHCm9Nc
;)
Laser machetes in space! Maybe there is hope after all!
"The increase in carbon dioxide and other gases caused by human activity has led to the global temperatures rising."
Has it though? Being the stubborn skeptic that I am, I dont think that is actually true, and many intellectuals have challenged that statement (which is a conclusion coming from the sCieNce™️ - so also hard for me to believe it because its the mainstream narrative).
Yeah you would be right to be skeptical and I know that many people have challenged it, though there doesn't seem to be anything in what they say.
Loss of pollinators, species extinction, increase in landfill, massive exploitation of other species and the developing world are also part of main stream science and narrative but they're undeniable. Everyone has a problem with carbon and temperature for some reason.
The issues you note are all real and should be addressed and mitigated/resolved. Yet somehow all environmental conservation and protection has been reduced to the “net zero” CO2 equation. This is both absurd and tragic because it obfuscates and ignores these real issues and it places the blame on people that are simply the end users of technology and systems available to them.
The reason for the focus on CO2 is simply because all human activity can be assigned a “carbon” cost or footprint, which is how the squeeze is put on the individual. Combine the tracking of all activities with programmable CBDC and total top-down control is possible. Meanwhile, factory farming, poisoning of land, air and water, and our bloodstreams just continues unabated.
yep, and the 1% responsible for 25% carry on too
I second all that Tsubion says, but would add that I agree humans do have an overall negative impact on the earths general environment, and this is not something that gives me any pleasure. But the real problems in this world are politics, greed and psychopaths. The environment will do what ever it does.
I'm coming to think that the problem that is making the environment less habitable for humans is capitalism; in order to make a living in many jobs there has to be continued profit. This comes from the never ending expansion of markets and the relentless extraction of finite resources. Thus the rich end up with the way more than they need and the poor with way less.
This is an extremely complex discussion, but ultimately, I agree with you. How we get from where we are currently to a system of less materialism, more community, more liberty and much much less government is something that is never far from my mind
Right on. I'm writing a post about that. I had kind of given up. But I like to think that there might be a better way.
Right, pollution (a bad thing) is not the same as Global warming (a political construct).
In the 70s they were on TV mongering about global freezing.
Until 3-4 years ago I was taken by the news that there was man made global warming, now I know its part of the NWO end game to control the world. Temperatures rising where you live does not mean it is caused by human activity. And while pollution sucks IT IS NOT warming.
I STRONGLY suggest all to watch this vid: https://reflexivityspace.org/2022/04/30/the-climate-hustle-a-documentary-on-the-scam-of-man-made-climate-change/
The info I now understand to be correct
1. The sun is the major cause of climate changes not greenhouse gas.
2. Greenhouse gasses are water vapor 90%, 5% Co2 (don't hold me to exact numbers)
3. Over the millennia when the sun causes temp to rise Co2 rises 800 years later. Temp ALWAYS rises first. The Co2 in the rocks in the oceans is coming out, just boil a bunch of rocks on your kitchen stove and measure the Co2 in the vapor.
4. Global warming started BEFORE the industrial revolution in the early 1800s after the Mauder solar minimum was over.
5. Since 2020 we are now in a solar minimum said to get quite cold above the 33rd parallel by 2040.
https://strangesounds.org/2021/04/grand-solar-minimum-cycle-duration.html
6. Take the term “Global temp” with a grain of salt, this can be manipulated by where and how it’s measured.
7. There was a Climate gate 1 and 2, how many of you heard this bombshell info? Right, it wasnt on the news. The “scientists” admitted in emails they fudged the info.
https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/flashback-climategate-2009?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play
https://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&tag=wattsupwithth-20&s=books&qid=1268345567&sr=8-1
Hiya, the 'climategate' emails that Corbett (who often gets the wrong end of the (hockey) stick) refers to alleged fudging of data and conflates two separate issues; mike's trick and hiding the decline in an email by Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia. Mike's trick is simply the ubiquitous technique of using reconstructed temperatures from ice cores and tree rings with actual thermometer measurements on the same graph. The decline referred to is not a decline in temperatures but rather a decline in tree ring thickness which should have correlated with the rise in thermometer temperatures, but which diverged in the 1960s due to local pollution in some areas. It has been publicly discussed since 1995. in 2009 stolen emails were investigated; yet 9 independent studies showed that nothing affected the science. Conspiracy theorists were disappointed.
The 1998 hockey stick of Micheal Mann is not an illusion or a fudge, the first critique was from Steve McIntyre who claimed it contained statistical flaws, but the stick has been reproduced many times. in fact the latest data from 60 institutions around the world strengthens it, which conspiracy theorists like to ignore.
Yes solar and volcanic activity affect temperature. It should be getting colder if we weren't warming it. When solar and volvanoes are taken into account co2 and temperature are tightly correlated. In the last few decades the sun has cooled, yet the temperature has risen. It was predicted that winters and nights should warm faster than summers and days if humans were warming the planet not changes in the sun. This is what has happened.
The vast majority of scientists in the 1970s predicted warming only a small number of papers predicted cooling. This is OK.
Yes we have been warming, and sea levels rising since the last ice age, then it levelled off, https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
co2 rises after temperature rises (due to changes in orbit) because the warmer sea releases co2 but that doesn't mean that co2 can't cause warming too. In fact the extra co2 caused extra warming in a reinforcing feedback. The lag doesn't disprove warming is caused by co2 but rather reinforces evidence of positive feedback. It is a false dichotomy to have to chose between 2 options both of which are true. Increases temperates increase co2 and increased co2 increases temperatures.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas but doesn't cause the initial warming it amplifies it because the amount of vapour in the air depends on how warm it is. Yes carbon is a small percentage of the greenhouse gases but that doesn't mean its effect when amplified by water vapour is not large. Water vapour is a big reason the climate is so sensitive to co2 warming. small amounts of things can have big effects eg trace minerals, arsenic and alcohol in the body. And just a few degrees temperature will make a huge difference to humans way of living even if it doesn't kill us straight away.
Jo
ok thanks, honestly I'm not climate "deep diver" and dont have a compilation of documents to argue from. It is clear that the biosecurity state is merging with the climate security state and financial security state ala the NWO, and anything they are behind is always an occult manipulation of logic. Lets leave it here, appreciate your time in reply and others can take it up as I say, I'm still surface swimming on it. The people all pushing it fly in private planes and are absolutely full on NWO secret society people, it was started and pushed at the same times as all the tyranny since 9.11 and was a brainchild of the Club of Rome if I am correct, and they are clearly using the climate story as an agenda to restrict our entire lives.
Anything started by the Club of Rome is an absolute evil as plan to take over the earth:
https://altamontenterprise.com/09252019/elitists-have-created-myth-climate-change-eliminate-national-sovereignty
I was skeptical too but I knew that a lot of what was said about animal agriculture was wrong so decided to deep dive on climate. Thank you for your questions it really helps.
The richest 1%, who are both causing and pushing climate change, are clearly having their cake and eating it. I don't think industry will ever restrict its profits though. And any alleged plan to control doesn't mean what's happening in front of my eyes isn't happening.
And as far as the elites we always refer to, they are Westerners whose fortunes will go down with the dollar. They won't be controlling anyone for much longer let alone the whole world.
And now I'm very suspicious of a conspiracy to control us and wonder where it's coming from, if the end result is support for the industries of the elite 1% who are allegedly trying to control us!
🙏🏽
Good article. However, many scientists dispute that rises in CO2 contribute to global warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqWv26PXqz0&list=WL&index=33
no correlation between temps and co2
there is when solar and volcanic activity is taken into account
Jo,
A few things to consider:
- The global average temperature is a meaningless measurement -- it's like asking about the average colour of a cat (brown, right... do you see a lot of brown cats?)
- I mention that because it means that *all* global warming data from before about 1980 is *completely* meaningless -- no one was even *trying* to measure it. There was no grid-spaced network of thermometers in northern Manitoba in 1962...
- The 'splicing' of data, via Mann, is... horrific. Ice cores/tree rings might be viable proxies for local temperature... but there are *absolutely none* of those things in the ocean, so they can't possibly work as a proxy for *Global Average Temperature* data.
- Also, I doubt, although I may be wrong, that Mozambique or Cambodia are actively engaged in shoring up the 'ice core' data to substantiate global warming... is there even ice there? I don't see it in Cambodia...
- 'Hottest Temperature' is a bit of a misnomer. In the old days, we used mercury thermometers, which had a natural lag-time. Now it's platinum or some-such, so we get instantaneous readings which means we measure higher highs, and lower lows.
- Global warming data rarely presents 'error bars', and can thus be thrown out summarily.
- The assertion that H20 doesn't 'cause' global warming is completely disingenuous (on the part of NASA, not you). Freeman dyson (!) himself pointed out that climate models based on CO2 could not *at all* reproduce the observed 'warming'. So Hansen (etc) introduced a 'feedback' with H20 based on... 'computer models... Remember the 'models' telling us how many people were going to die of covid... yeah, same sort of 'models'
- Also, consider that we have only a vague idea of Cloud Physics. Yes, water vapour will augment heat-retention, but... if the vapour forms into clouds, it will make the earth more 'white', and thus reduce the amount of incoming heat. (see Richard Lindzen, for example)
- While the sea levels do seem to be rising, it's only about 7 inches/*century*. So basically we just need to move 10 dutch families into every coastal nation, and everything will be fine!
- The 'frightening' cases of ocean rise are invariably due to either 'subduction zones' or other factors that are causing the *land* to sink, not the oceans to rise.
- Extreme weather is... not a thing. We have excellent data on hurricane strength, for example, in the USA, which shows *no* correlation between 'temperature' and extreme hurricanes.
- In terms of agriculture, two of the most fertile wheat-growing areas in North America are Kansas and Saskatchewan... I've visited/lived in both and... well, there are more than a few degrees of temperature separating them! So no, wheat production is not going to suffer from 'global warming'.
- This one is the toughest: 'royspencer.com' (a professor at Alabama-Huntsville) has been collecting satellite data on 'global average temperature' since 1979 -- so 40+ years of a *consistent* data set. If you look at the data expecting an *increase* -- you'll find it, at about 1 degree/Century (!!). BUT look at the data as a correlation. There is NO meaningful correlation between the temperature and the (monotonically increasing) CO2 data. I mean *nothing*... okay, maybe r^2=0.05.
- There are vast swathes of time -- up to 20 years -- where there is *no* increase in temperature... This is completely inconsistent with the CO2 model of heat accumulation.
I could go on... but suffice to say that there is *no* science in Global Warming. It's just a bunch of venal, horrible virologists (sorry, Climate Scientists) helping to destroy the world because they were too worthless to actually build anything.
ShiYen
Leonardo di Caprio, the Hollywood champion, propagandist, and ambassador for climate change policy, building multi-million dollar resorts at sea level doesn't think he's made a bad investment.
https://www.euronews.com/travel/2019/05/31/leonardo-dicaprio-will-open-revolutionary-eco-resort-in-belize-in-2020
He also made a documentary in 2016 with National Geographic, 'Before The Flood', where he met scientists, activists and world leaders to discuss the dangers of climate change.
“With the onset of climate change, there are huge challenges, so we want the structure to not only enhance and improve the environment, but to be a model for the future.”
Hahaha... so no sea level rise then.
Can't have it both ways!
Hi Tsubion, I think this argument is a bit weak. The sea level is demonstrably rising, despite Bjorn Lomborg pointing to tiny fluctuations in the level of increase. The graph from 1993 to 2018 is a 45 degree angle. However the y axis is in mm, rising 90 mm.. Di Caprio will have a least 30 or 50 years to get a return on his investment, easily his life time, and what does he care after that? Insurers may increase or cancel premiums nearer the time, but 50 years is easily the life time of a resort itself anyway. I would be much more surprised if he was building them in Florida which has a high water table, being built on a swamp, and already has a problem.
What rich people choose to do with their money, what they say and their hypocrisy doesn't prove or disprove that something is happening.
Yes, I know who di Caprio is, I watched Before the Flood and went to watch Titanic in 1997 in the UCI Whiteleys in Bayswater with my mates Jen and Clare from St Marys Hospital, drooling over his boyish good looks as our Baskin Robbins Rocky road ice cream melted.
You see... you can't have it both ways. It's either a problem or it's not. How much have these celebrity icons been paid to push this propaganda on the gullible populace for the last twenty years? As you quite correctly point out... they don't give a flying fark about CO2 or rising sea levels or "the science" of globbly wobbly. All they care about is their pay check and whatever their agent tells them to do to save face or keep those virtue signal points trending higher. And these are the characters that influence policy worldwide not the unknown scientists fudging the numbers on their laptops using dodgy inputs. A few millimeters difference in water levels here and there and the effects that may have due to local geographic conditions over the next hundred years is of little interest to the majority of people living on this planet... again, due to the reasons you point out... we have short life spans compared to the long winded story of climate change.
Even the temp readings are a joke and the fudging of numbers to continue this narrative should be ripped to pieces just like the fake pandemic nonsense and the now obvious fraudulent history of "the science."
This is not an argument. It's a nothing burger. There is no need at all to make any concessions to variations in climate because our world is always changing including our tiny impact for such a short time. There are no winners and losers on planet Earth. It's just life bubbling up like a fungus doing its thing until it dries out. End of story. On a human level, people will adapt to change or perish as they always have done.
To call out whether the "science" is more correct or less correct is avoiding the obvious elephant in the room that screams "psyop" all over again. And any time this happens, quite frankly the "science" takes a back seat because the main thrust of the scheme is to make everyone piss their pants, cough up their hard earned money, line up for jabs (to stop climate change), pollute the environment with ridiculously inefficient windmills and solar panels, and prepare hundreds of millions of EVs for the landfill along with all the windmill blades, suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to bury it underground, collect cow farts, and spray the skies to block out the sun.
You focus on the minutia of the "science" (which I believe is as deceptive and wrong as Louis Pasteur's "virology") while the rest of us call out the blatantly criminal activity surrounding the "science" based on fraudulent claims.
So just as I call for virology to be shut down until further notice I also call for climate "science" to be paused, put on hold, shut down until we can actually truthfully ascertain if it has any benefits at all other than perpetuating the current scams that have taken over the world.
Di Caprio used his own money, but paid for by who? Certainly not those with the power who are big oil and big animal ag/pharma who block everything at every turn?
I completely disagree with you about scientists fudging numbers.
Yes the whole mitigation and all of the schemes you mention will be a bloody disaster and terror. Just like vaccines are. Yes virology is a scam, but that doesn't mean that people don't get ill at all. They get ill from things like human-made pollution. The answer to pollution is clearly not vaccines. The answer to pollution is clearly not mad mitigation schemes. It's to stop polluting, mostly achieved by the climate hypocrites stopping flying in their jets. Ending up with the wrong solution that makes things worse doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
This whole thing rests on the idea of a conspiracy to control us into consuming less, I just don't buy it anymore. If that makes me gullible then so be it.
I don't see any of this as a "problem" that needs to be solved. I don't think human activity is a problem that needs to be curtailed. It will self correct when it's good and ready. Maybe we're already far along that road. Obviously when there were less of us and we were gradually shifting from goat herding to farming, industrial pollution was but a mere twinkle in our collective eye. Should we have snuffed ourselves out then? Prevented millions of deaths caused by toxic air in China every year?
I just don't see things that way. I'd rather we have cars and accept the consequences. I'd rather we build out the Internet and accept the consequences. I'd rather we put rockets into space and do whatever comes with that than go back to goat herding (which was devastating to the environment in itself).
I'm not saying all is lost either (although I am perceiving a greater signal to unplug from these feeds entirely and just focus on my fiction until further notice). Humans may eventually, at some point, if they're incredibly fortunate... outgrow their current, long standing condition of collective psychosis and extraordinarily incompetent belief systems... but I won't hold my breath.
Maybe AI can help recondition humanity into something viable, sustainable, more palatable. People are embracing change while others shun it. The systems that are able to survive (regardless of current ideologies and political biases) will survive if at all possible. Everything else will fall by the wayside when push comes to shove, when the resource wars really kick off.
Again, if we want to stop polluting, if you see pollution as a problem, then we all need to stop consuming, and if that happens most people would suffer total collapse and die. You can't rewind to some simpler way of life once everyone has become dependent on modern farming and just in time production of goods.
So the pollution shifted to China. That was the solution for the West. Beyond that, it could shift to a new location or China finds ways to mitigate the issues under their watch. I think the added costs of not polluting so much as we have been will put an end to this cycle of consumerism all by itself. And then reality will hit home.
Scientists have been fudging science since science began! Much of what we think we know is based on assumptions and I don't really put much faith in projections of any kind. I expect to be completely wrong about any projections I may have made up to now. We simply cannot know what comes next.
Hollywood, Big Pharma, Big Government are more tied at the hip than you may like to think. The sheer Lockstep powerhouse of propaganda projected by these institutions should be clear to anyone by now and yes... I believe celebrities gain favor and indirectly get paid to sell globbly wobbly nonsense and vaxxines.
Hi Tsubion, yes I think I see what you're saying. Nothing is problem it just is. If people want to exploit others and make products that they don't need or want then so be it. What will happen will happen.
I like your name...
I like yours!
I just chopped down half a forest today... by hand... well, quite a few pine trees, but it felt like half a forest. It's basically "weeding" but for trees. I would send you some but the postage fees are quite prohibitive.
Chainsaw oil feed is kaput! And the weeding machine konked out yesterday as well. And the car wouldn't start... I think Universe is trying to send me a message... but I always interpret them wrong anyway. Dragging and piling the wood is the tough part definitely. I'm basically providing entertainment for the tourists on their way to the local beach. Most of them have never come across a madman with an axe!