I disagree. IMO you are wrong on this. I have followed this since 1983. At that time it was a weird theory coming out of England. I believed it until 1993-1994. After that it became less credible. And by the 00s it had become a hoax.
One very bAd thing about it is it hijacked the green movement. The green movement had one good win after another for a long time. All that energy that had been cleaning things up and making things healthier was converted into AGW thinking. The think global act local movement was turned on its head.
Yes. I remember the good old days of conservationism and environmental health when the focus was purely on pollution and its negative effects. I'd like to think that the free market combined with user feedback is sufficient to address the issues resulting from industrialization of civilization but in reality we simply moved the dirty industry to other parts of the world.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. One only has to look at how the "science" has been coopted to create a global monster of totalitarian top down control ideology to know that we're being shafted... and properly so. It's the new world religion. And belief in carbon taxes and footprints keep the brainwashed cult members in line.
Really great article. It's not easy (speaking for myself) to parse through what exactly is the human contribution to climate change and what is propaganda being used to push a globalist agenda of control. I'm doing my best to not be swayed by those who only see it as either there's no problem whatsoever, or we should all kill ourselves to save the planet. I tend to focus more on the obvious polluting of rivers and air and poisoning of our food, as well as the horrific suffering produced by animal agriculture. Anytime big govt tells me that they have a solution, but that the solution won't involve making corporate polluters clean up their act, I immediately think it's a scam designed to centralize power and take away individual liberties. I've seen it too many times.
On June 7, 2023 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of Children’s Health Defense and a Presidential candidate interviewed Dale Wigington of GeoEngineeringWatch.org. A video of that interview is on YouTube at https://youtu.be/bqSkbHKSnjI It presents a fascinating and disturbing view of chem trails as deliberate acts of the US govt. to modify the weather. Chem trails are composed of aluminum nanoparticles, and are completely different from the water vapor of con trails.
Wigington does not think we face global warming but an abrupt climate collapse - as a result of the aluminum spread on the land and sea by airplanes. In people aluminum is stored in the brain and is associated with Alzheimer’s and many other brain injuries. Bioavailable aluminum in the soil kills the soil microbiome. It also reduces the atmospheric relative humidity which dries out the soil and the plants. Plants quit breathing (respirating) so they cannot sequester carbon and release oxygen. In the atmosphere aluminum reduces the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground, thus reducing the power generation of solar panels. Aluminum particles that fall on snow end up in rivers and our drinking water supply.
These effects might very well be a cause of wild fires and drought.
Ah the irony. all this attention on Global Warming for which we must replace carbon-based energy with solar-based energy while the geoengineering is reducing the solar energy. It appears that the left hand is not coordinating with the right hand: everyone is off pursuing their own pet theories while they shoot themselves in the foot.
Wigington thinks chem trail development began during World War II: there are photographs of fighter planes emitting white “clouds”.
Thank you for this article. I've realised in the last couple of years that by instinct rather than conscious thought there are two rules of critical thinking I follow:
1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
2. Confine analysis to the most straightforward, irrefutable facts in the first instance
In a fascinating interview with Gary Null, Kary Mullis says, "The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong," and with a sense of recognition I thought, "Yeah, that's what I do." Richard Feynman says more or less the same thing in a commencement speech, Cargo Cult Science, at Caltech in 1974.
So now that I'm amongst the no-virus people and so many of them are saying climate change is also a scam I'm like, "Really?" As you say, it hasn't been mainstream for all that long and when I first got interested in AGW I really thought I did due diligence looking at all the climate change denial material to see if it had any validity.
I've come to realise we are told so very many lies but the two things I thought are true are:
--- The moon landings
--- AGW
I have absolutely no doubt about the moon landings and it would take incredible evidence to say they didn't happen but my mind is open on AGW.
There's a data analyst climate skeptic who also has a substack on covid, John Dee. An analysis he did of UK weather stations over a hundred years shows a rise in the night-time temperature but not daytime. This type of rise is explained by climate scientists as the result of increased water vapour making more clouds which reflect heat in the daytime but not nighttime - however, this pattern of temperature rise isn't universal and in other places the pattern is different. Watts Up With That denies the evidence of this phenomenon - it all gets too complicated for me I have to say.
You're welcome and thank you for your comments. I had stopped believing in the moon landings but haven't looked into them, perhaps I should. It's interesting that you come down in favour of them. I guess you are not a flat earther, which is also becoming very common. 9/11 has gone for me too?
A climate scientist in 1859 predicted that if humans were increasing the temperature by trapping heat rather than the sun being the most important factor then nights and winters (when the earth should be cooling when the sun's not around so much) should warm faster on average across the globe (not just locally) than days and summers. Researchers claim that this is what has happened. I think it's true. Global temperatures have increased while solar activity has decreased.
I'm so glad that you had the same experience as me. Being part of the no-virus people was great but then suddenly climate change is a scam, vegans are ridiculed and my local stand in the park is now campaigning against emission regulation with placards saying 'co2 is nature's fertiliser'. I'm in no-woman's land. I now roll my eyes at them. I can see how they (and me once or twice) have appeared campaigning against vaccines. It even nearly made me doubt myself I was right about vaccines; they seem so crazy! I knew that everything they were saying about nutrition and animal ag was wrong, so looked into climate change, it seems pretty straight forward to me, it's getting hotter, we're releasing more co2 and cutting down more trees. When I started posting, all the same, disproved, propaganda of climate denial came up again and again.
Yes, no one's denying CO2 is an utterly essential part of the ecosystem. Seriously, such obviously strawman arguments drive me utterly nuts!
When I say I don't believe most things 9/11 is top of the list! But for 9/11 they used a False Dilemma propaganda strategy where they made it a choice between A. Terrorists or B. US government when true it was B. but it wasn't B. in the way it's made out it was.
Death and injury were staged ... and oh my goodness is that hard to get across to the so-called "truthers", truthers who are so anchored in their belief of the "evil US government killing all those poor people," they simply cannot be reasoned with.
Not that I don't think they're evil, of course, they are and they are killing and maiming so many people now it's really hard to come to terms with but they didn't kill people on 9/11 - nothing to do with not being evil, it just wasn't what they wanted then and they don't do things they don't want in psyops. Psyops are all about doing only what you want for real and faking the rest. They obviously want to kill and maim now but they didn't then and ironically you can propagandise and coerce health professionals by the thousands and thousands to inject people with dangerous substances in the name of saving them ... but you cannot get demolition professionals to only partially evacuate buildings before destroying them. Regardless of what can and can't be done, the evidence clearly shows that death and injury were faked on 9/11.
I very much appreciate your response, Alex. I must've said this online about 10 times without anyone making a comment. I think it's a pretty good point myself especially when coupled with the point that you CAN propagandise and coerce health professionals to behave in a way that achieves a result opposite to the one they're supposed to be aiming for. It's just amazing.
It has only been over the last few years, and was definitely tied up in the broader pandemic “awakening” process. Astrology also makes more sense to me under this paradigm
You are right, climate deniers are The Establishment, same as the Church in Galileo's day. Anyone who spends time on the internet claiming that global warming isn't "real" (and what is "real" anyway?) is serving the great dracular interests of entrenched capital, serving the class that makes money off workers and commodities alike without ever having to work for themselves. The fact that there are denialists posting today on your substack is a measure of how effective the psyops and mindwar techniques of the CIA and Navy have been. People have been brainwashed to believe whatever serves the interests of the investors' cashflows serves their own interests as well. Dialectical materialism is the only way to look at it clearly. It is shocking that this late in the game people can still pretend to believe in the basic physics of tellurian insulation, or as Negarestani calls it, erathication. https://thespouter.substack.com/p/erathication-definition
I've been blocked by prof Michael Mann from his twitter account for politely asking how much of the literature he has read to qualify him to declare what is 'covid' misinformation and what isn't. I've also been banned from Sam Bailey's (who looked into the evidence for a new disease caused by a new virus and couldn't find any, nor can I) youtube and substack channels for saying how misleading she was. She doesn't think it matters how hugely inefficient animal bodies are for turning resources and energy into calories for humans to eat because land and resources (stolen from first nation people in her country) are unlimited and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
I know we all have our biases but I hoped that those lucky enough to have a science background could unite over the literature. Seems not to be the case, on either 'side". We can block what we don't want to hear and say that scientists are lying. It diminishes everyones credibility.
Interesting, so if they try again to place 4.4 billion of us under house arrest, wear masks and mandate vaccines, with no evidence whatsoever, you'd go along with it?
? I think you're serious. So it's OK for millions of those living hand to mouth to starve to death, for thousands of elderly to die of loneliness without their loved ones, to put masks on babies and toddlers, that small business should go under as cartels flourish, to override bodily autonomy and coerce publics sector workers into an unnecessary experimental procedure that made $trillions for convicted criminals and fraudsters, that the biggest transfer of wealth in history from the poor to the rich occurred and that it's OK for the establishment to lie to the stupid proles because they don't know what's good for them?
Well, I don't think they'll do another lockdown, regardless of the public health threat--the first one wasn't really effective enough to justify it. I did notice, though, that I got a check in the mail signed by Donald Trump. Haven't gotten one of those before or since. You're not going to convince me that covid doesn't exist, or that viruses don't exist, or whatever it is you think.
Thank you Jed. I have watched how industry has targeted medical freedom with climate denial information and ridicule for anyone on the environmental side. I don't understand all you post but it has also amazed me that people seemingly awake to pharma have allowed themselves to be brainwashed.
We have faced tremendous environmental destruction and degradation over the past century of industrial development, and it continues at a tremendous rate, threatening our air, water, soil, all vegetation and animals, and our very bloodstreams. Pure water and pure food are increasingly scarce, while we are being poisoned from the skies.
These are very real issues. Climate change, man-made or natural, is not.
You've jumped the shark with all this climate hysteria, the last straw for me linking to an article by the massive windbag and fraud Bill McKibben, who makes me ashamed of my alma mater.
Climate is the new scamdemic, and you have only been amplifying the fear mongering that comes from the top down by the controllers, designed to imprison us under phony "sustainable development", a planetary scheme of central planning that tracks and traces all resources and activities and assigns everything a social and carbon credit score.
The hugely successful Just stop oil and it's industry funded activists being allowed access to all the top sporting events right up to players and onto the courts and courses for photo ops, plus a laughing Greta yesterday being lifted away by laughing policeman has got the Uk MSM calling JUSt stop oil a 'mob' and climate alarmists and is putting everyone off green issues. Conservatives have abandoned green policies because the electorate has and Labour is saying if elected they would not regulate corporations but let them promise to sort themselves out. They've lost a by election over a minor regulation of a low emission zone extension. We are so far from top down regulation and social credit as is possible to be.
The oil industry made $195 billion last year and wants to ensure it is allowed to take out the $trillions still under the earth and is making a big effort. It's really working.
Reliance on hydrocarbons rather that local sources increases not decreases centralisation and top down control.
Bill Mac made some interesting points about what RFk is saying about viruses (nonsense) and conspiracies. They do always seem to lead to the Jews.
I disagree climate change is human made. The pay-op is to make people think it isn't.
I"ve yet to see someone put side by side the science by presser moments of Aids (by Gallo?) vs. MMR Causes Autism (by Wakefield) Isn't this a great example of a double standard? And to throw one more comparison in the willingness of industry to say that HPV causes Cervical cancer. I realize there may be small differences. But I'd love to hear a break down of the three claims, how they were made, and over what type of evidence.
I wonder what Al Gore would have done had he won the presidency. I fell for his "climate change" story then, but not now. We face real threats from pharmaceutical drugs, drones fitted for warfare, cluster bombs, foods laced with toxins, EMF, et al.
We haven't had the hottest day ever recorded (since 1979 or in the last 125,000 years depending on which climate alarmist propaganda rag you read). If you believe that then you are are on the same level as those who believe that the vaccines are necessary, safe and effective.
But that's not what I said. I said that believing we have had the hottest day ever in recorded history (therefore expressing implicitly that this is due to GHG emissions which must be urgently curtailed in order to prevent us from having ever more even hotter days) is equivalent to believing that the vaccines are safe, effective and necessary. Both involve the denial of evidence to the contrary and the embracing of extremely dubious 'scientific' analysis. So basically, if you reject the 'safe, effective and necessary' narrative plugged by the pro-vax camp on the basis of extremely dodgy science and evidence, by the same token, you should also be rejecting the 'hottest day ever' claims made in the media, plus the countless other climate alarmist claims they are making, and have made over the years.
Hiya, are you saying that the NOAA are lying and that the hottest day since 1979 was not in July 2023, if so when was it, or that it was not 17 degrees, if so what was it? You can add the implicit GHG mitigation if you like but I didn't, I said it was hot. If we can't accept any observations from the world at all, even one as simple as how hot it is or what are the symptoms someone has, we're not going to get very far in any analysis of them.
No, I'm not saying that NOAA are lying. I'm saying that the 'data' used to justify the claim that July 4th was the hottest day ever is extremely dubious. NOAA says the same! It was not NOAA who were making the claim.
"For the seven-day period ending Wednesday, the daily average temperature was .04C (.08F) higher than any week in 44 years of record-keeping, according to the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer data.
That metric showed that Earth’s average temperature on Wednesday remained at the record high of 17.18C.
Climate Reanalyzer uses data from the NCEP climate forecast system to provide a time series of daily mean two-metre air temperature, based on readings from surface, air balloon and satellite observations.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), whose figures are considered the gold standard in climate data, said on Thursday it could not validate the unofficial numbers.
It noted that the reanalyzer uses model output data, which it called “not suitable” as substitutes for actual temperatures and climate records. The NOAA monitors global temperatures and records on a monthly and an annual basis, not daily."
Beware of statistics. The reason that NOAA went back to 1979, but not further, is that it was a relatively cold year (it was the coldest year on record in Iceland), and historically much hotter before that. So starting trend analysis at that point makes for a larger increase.
Also, go back and look at statistics from July 4 from 1911, which saw temperatures of over 110 degrees Fahrenheit in normally cool places like Maine and New Hampshire.
Beware of statistics, and the lying liars that manipulate them.
Hi, so according to the NOAA, the best available data from thermometers and stuff the UK in 2022 had its warmest year since national records began in 1884. The UK's yearly temperature of 10.0°C (50.05°F) was 0.1°C (0.2°F) higher than the previous record set in 2014 (9.9°C / 49.8°F). According to the UK's Met Office, the nation's 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2003. Each season ranked among the 10 warmest for their respective seasons. In the UK, a maximum temperature of 40.3°C (104.5°F) was set at Coningsby, Lincolnshire during the month of July — marking the first time in the nation's record that maximum temperatures of 40.0°C (104°F) or higher were set in the UK.- ie the hottest day since 1884. What is the rationale for saying we haven't had the hottest day in 2022?
"What is the rationale for saying we haven't had the hottest day in 2022?"
I presume you mean 2023.
It is certainly not your summary above. What is the rationale for presuming that July 4th 2023 was not the hottest day ever on planet earth (well, at least since 1979 or since the Eemian inerglacial depending on which rag you want to believe)? I have already pointed this out.
I accepted your explaination for the models used for the July 4th- waiting for NOAA confirmation- and have removed it from my post. I wondered what your explanation for the hottest year and day happening in 2022 if you're saying its not getting hotter.
2/ Some rather dubious 'records' set by poorly sited weather stations in the UK are not proof that the hottest day on earth happened last summer as opposed to this summer.
No statistically significant warming since Sept 2014. So all these 'hottest day/month/year ever' records should be taken with a pinch of salt. The imminent El Nino (a natural weather event) might put an end to the current pause in global mean temperatures. We shall see.
Apparently this Is a common ploy. Concede warming but then move the goal posts and say ah but when using really short time periods like 13 month averages and even though both 2016 and 2020 were hotter than 2014 there us no increase in the acceleration of warming! More reasonable time frames of 10 year averages clearly show significant acceleration. And yes we've had a few years of naturally occurring and cooling la nina.
You don't have to be a climate alarmist to be alarmed at unprecedentedly large and early bush fires, droughts affecting the global economy and unbearable high temperatures and humidity for people and animals, which will be worse with el nino, who cares if it's been hot before its never been this hot for us 8 billion and other animals. You come across as callous and angry. I don't get it.
Those who both support climate alarmism and deny the safety and efficacy of all vaccines, are indeed a rare breed.
Here’s what I think. If you care about definitions, epistemology, and the laws of logic, and the burden of proof, with the proper information you’ll come out questioning climate alarmism, vaccine safety, and the very existence of viruses.
On the other hand, if you’re led by your emotions and your highest value is not harming any creature, not even one as small as a virus, well, you may end up on the right side on some issues and the wrong side on others and it’ll have nothing to do with the consistent application of logic to facts.
I've said this 1,000 times over. Take everything the environmentalists say and carry it to the furthest extreme -- because that's where it was always going.
They aren't looking at renewable energy -- they're going for NO ENERGY. The people at the top of these "movements" are trying to enact a Hunger Games type scenario. That's literally where this is headed.
I'm old enough to remember when natural gas was considered clean. But now it's going to kill us all. Faster than the cholesterol in eggs.
Let me give you another example. Remember how there was a hole in the ozone layer, caused my carbon monoxide? What was the correction? Catalytic converters. They took care of the problem. They converted carbon monoxide into CO2 and water.
But solutions are NOT wanted. Now CO2 is bad, and we've moved on from carbon monoxide. Because it was NEVER about the environment -- it was always about control.
The entire environmental movement in all its forms is and always has been about control. Once you understand that, all of these ridiculous ideas make sense.
These people are zealots, they cannot be reasoned with. That's why "the science" is always changing. Not because it's legitimate, but because it's not science -- it's propaganda.
Don't give an inch people! There never going to come to a conclusion that benefits society. They'll always come to a solution that gives them greater control over the lives of individuals.
I see your point. But I'm not claiming that there's a "pure" science. But there are observable things that can be repeatable.
Science and the scientific method link back to Christian scientists trying to explain God's creation. During those early days, there wasn't as much of a bias, because people really just wanted to know "why" and "how" things worked. There was little profit in lying.
What I'm saying is that this new "changing science" doesn't even hold up to the standards of those who claim that it *is* reliable. They are literally just making stuff up, and throwing around the word "science."
On the climate topic, both sides have expressed their views here and elsewhere. To talk more would make the exchange ... overheated :) ... Now, a calm talk about Galileo, from a friend historian:
"The controversy between [Cardinal] Bellarmine and Galileo was based on Augustinian biblical interpretation, on both sides. They accepted that Augustine's argument that a sound proof in natural philosophy must overthrow a literal reading of a biblical text. They disagreed about what would constitute such a proof.
Galileo insisted that mathematics and looking through his newfangled telescope could suffice to disprove geocentrism, Kepler's elliptical orbits and the Jesuits' observations of cometary structure and orbits. Never mind that the Jesuits had seen them through telescopes but he hadn't.
Bellarmine and successive Popes had no problem with Galileo advancing such notions as hypotheses, as their long discussions with him over decades demonstrate. They did not accept that his methods constituted sufficient proof to overthrow traditional readings of the relevant texts, as Galileo persistently insisted they did. Neither mathematics nor observation had previously been regarded as providing anything more than probable explanations in natural philosophy.
The real issue between Bellarmine and Galileo was about Aristotelian methodology. There were several kinds of Aristotelianism available. All of them emphasized that true scientia could only be created through the operation of logic. However, at Padua [where Galileo lived for many years], Averroes was the filter through which Aristotle was read, probably because of the strength of the medical school there. Among medical teachers, Averroes remained the central text until well into the 17th century. At Padua the strength of his influence encouraged a revival of the Aristotelian commitment to empirical enquiry [...]
Galileo claimed that he had proved the real, as opposed to hypothetical, motion of the planets around the sun in perfectly circular motion, on the basis of his mathematics and the use of his newfangled telescope. He was absolutely committed to circular motion, as an expression of the perfection of God, even when the Jesuits told him they had both observed and calculated the elliptical motion of a comet, cutting across the planetary orbits. Galileo had been ill at the time and denounced the observations as an illusion, but his a priori commitment makes it unlikely that he would have accepted elliptical motion even if he had been looking.
Bellarmine held to the traditional view, that proof required logic. [...]
[Galileo] was overconfident, having been a Medici courtier, where definitive proof was not required of him but only elegant presentation. He also felt sure that he would be protected by his personal friendship with the Pope, something so well known that it became a major talking point in his favourite daughter's nunnery.
He pushed it too far, not only publishing his ideas in the form of a dialogue but casting the Pope in the role of the simpleton, by putting his sceptical questions into that character's mouth.
The distinction between the kinds of argument required for philosophical proof and those required for religious belief is a very old one. Indeed, what became modern scepticism was originally promoted by religious reformers such as Savonarola, precisely because they wanted to drive logic out of religion and back into areas where it was more appropriate."
Thank you very interesting. Could you summarise that please? The religious leaders would have been happy to accept that the earth went round the sun (either elliptically or circularly) rather than the other way around if Galileo had proved sufficient proof, which they felt he did not.
Do you feel there is sufficient evidence that the earth goes round the sun even now? This is not an uncontentious issue. Every other person on here seems to be a geocentric or a flat earther.
‘Just like they argued that the EPA had rigged the science on second hand smoke, Singer and Seitz claimed there was no warming. Then that it was natural. Then that we could adapt to it'
If what you are comparing is as I understand it, the EPA et al. Have rigged the science. Point being if your studies are not thorough enough on this, are your warming theories blinded by your desires to be 'right'. There is copious good evidence from esteemed professionals that sway my paradigm towards natural phenomenon swamping man made problems.
The largest study on the health effects of smoking was based on data gathered from a population in California. The American Cancer Society began collecting the data in 1959. Because the data included health information from more than 35,000 non-smoking spouses, it provided the basis for the longest-running and largest secondhand smoking study ever undertaken. Funded by ACS and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, an anti-smoking organization paid for by California’s cigarette tax, the analysis was undertaken by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
However, as with the IARC study, when the preliminary research indicated the study would fail to provide evidence of a negative passive smoking effect, both ACS and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program withdrew their support. Once word began to circulate about the controversial results, Enstrom and Kabat found themselves unable to find another source of foundation funding. Reluctantly, they accepted funding from the tobacco industry. Their report, published in 2003, found no significant increases in heart disease or lung cancer among non-smokers chronically exposed to secondhand smoke. Anti- smoking advocates closed ranks against Enstrom and Kabat’s paper. The ACS and Stanton Glantz mobilized their forces to undermine its findings. Glantz held a news conference in which, as he put it in an email to his followers, he would “debunk” the report. Predictably, the ACS and Glantz focused on the study having been funded by the tobacco industry, while ignoring the fact that anti-smoking groups had supported the study for 39 of its 40 years—and that it had been largely completed before the tobacco companies entered the picture
Enstrom and Kabat were both respected epidemiologists. Both contributed to early research that first pointed to the danger of smoking, and their integrity had never before been questioned. But the ACS and Glantz’s tactics proved effective in generating public skepticism about their findings. It is a tactic Glantz and others employ to this day. But the anti-smoking activists wanted evidence that secondhand smoke killed in order to heighten concern among nonsmokers. So, they went back to Step 2 in the anti-tobacco playbook and developed a study that would heighten concern desired result
Thank you for this history - really. I knew nothing of it. Since 2000 I've been sympathetic to smokers who seem to be villified by non-smokers. I personally do not smoke, but my mother did. She died age 85 - not so young or premature. Some people in the county where I used to live have gone bonkers outlawing even the smell of cigarette smoke outside the windows of their homes by smokers walking nearby. Unbelievable.
That's a good point... but I'm guessing you don't want to go back to the "previous" way of life. It was way too tough for today's pampered generation. They would mostly faint on contact or shrivel up and die.
Even replacement level consumerism becomes a problem when the population keeps increasing to unsustainable levels.
Something will snap... or has already snapped... but people are good at ignoring signs of collapse and carrying on as if Columbian bananas grow in their local supermarket and Chinese factories will magically continue pumping out replacement goods forever and ever amen.
I think if those with the biggest footprints; the 1% industrial and political elites flying around the world to go to conferences to save the planet, Americans and then the rest of the developed world stopped consumming so much, yes the global economy may collapse, but better that than not having a habitable planet at all. Health wise growing food for allotments proved very beneficial during the war. I don't wish the war back. But I am happy to live simpler and freer.
I'm happy growing food on my land but I know it can't feed me and others around me reliably all year round. I live in a place that had cow carts until the seventies. The older folk round here don't want to go back to that way of life because they know how hard it was without modern inputs and machinery.
If given a choice to live on handouts (palliative care) and take all the shots (to finish the job) or go back to medieval hard labor... most will choose the former.
Yes. That was the problem. Too individualistic and rabidly competitive! They give me a filthy look when I say they should have collaborated more (cooperatives) and not worked half the day to maintain the two cows per house (the cow cart engine).
"They" are my parent's generation that grew up under this subsistence system in Northern Spain. Other parts were just as poor but with different inputs and landscape. So maybe goat and pig herders instead of individual houses owning a bit of everything. Any exchangeable produce would be taken to the local town (20km) on foot to earn a few pesetas for cloth, tools etc. Clothes were washed in the local river. Fields were plowed barefoot or with wooden clogs. Everything was made from the local wood and granite. Then the men started to emigrate and bring in the money. And the drug trade came from South America. And everything changed. All you see now are Mercedes, BMW, and Audi. And tourists. And windmills up on the hill. And more regulations about what you can do on your own land. People still fight over their land markers though! Some things never change.
I disagree. IMO you are wrong on this. I have followed this since 1983. At that time it was a weird theory coming out of England. I believed it until 1993-1994. After that it became less credible. And by the 00s it had become a hoax.
One very bAd thing about it is it hijacked the green movement. The green movement had one good win after another for a long time. All that energy that had been cleaning things up and making things healthier was converted into AGW thinking. The think global act local movement was turned on its head.
Yes. I remember the good old days of conservationism and environmental health when the focus was purely on pollution and its negative effects. I'd like to think that the free market combined with user feedback is sufficient to address the issues resulting from industrialization of civilization but in reality we simply moved the dirty industry to other parts of the world.
yep 🙏🏽
I wholeheartedly agree with you. One only has to look at how the "science" has been coopted to create a global monster of totalitarian top down control ideology to know that we're being shafted... and properly so. It's the new world religion. And belief in carbon taxes and footprints keep the brainwashed cult members in line.
Really great article. It's not easy (speaking for myself) to parse through what exactly is the human contribution to climate change and what is propaganda being used to push a globalist agenda of control. I'm doing my best to not be swayed by those who only see it as either there's no problem whatsoever, or we should all kill ourselves to save the planet. I tend to focus more on the obvious polluting of rivers and air and poisoning of our food, as well as the horrific suffering produced by animal agriculture. Anytime big govt tells me that they have a solution, but that the solution won't involve making corporate polluters clean up their act, I immediately think it's a scam designed to centralize power and take away individual liberties. I've seen it too many times.
Thank you. Right with you 🙏🏽
On June 7, 2023 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of Children’s Health Defense and a Presidential candidate interviewed Dale Wigington of GeoEngineeringWatch.org. A video of that interview is on YouTube at https://youtu.be/bqSkbHKSnjI It presents a fascinating and disturbing view of chem trails as deliberate acts of the US govt. to modify the weather. Chem trails are composed of aluminum nanoparticles, and are completely different from the water vapor of con trails.
Wigington does not think we face global warming but an abrupt climate collapse - as a result of the aluminum spread on the land and sea by airplanes. In people aluminum is stored in the brain and is associated with Alzheimer’s and many other brain injuries. Bioavailable aluminum in the soil kills the soil microbiome. It also reduces the atmospheric relative humidity which dries out the soil and the plants. Plants quit breathing (respirating) so they cannot sequester carbon and release oxygen. In the atmosphere aluminum reduces the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground, thus reducing the power generation of solar panels. Aluminum particles that fall on snow end up in rivers and our drinking water supply.
These effects might very well be a cause of wild fires and drought.
Ah the irony. all this attention on Global Warming for which we must replace carbon-based energy with solar-based energy while the geoengineering is reducing the solar energy. It appears that the left hand is not coordinating with the right hand: everyone is off pursuing their own pet theories while they shoot themselves in the foot.
Wigington thinks chem trail development began during World War II: there are photographs of fighter planes emitting white “clouds”.
Thank you. I've added in some more info on SAI
Thank you for this article. I've realised in the last couple of years that by instinct rather than conscious thought there are two rules of critical thinking I follow:
1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
2. Confine analysis to the most straightforward, irrefutable facts in the first instance
In a fascinating interview with Gary Null, Kary Mullis says, "The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong," and with a sense of recognition I thought, "Yeah, that's what I do." Richard Feynman says more or less the same thing in a commencement speech, Cargo Cult Science, at Caltech in 1974.
Kary Mullis interview (highly recommended): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1FXbxDrDrY
https://speakola.com/grad/richard-feynman-caltech-1974?rq=feynman
So now that I'm amongst the no-virus people and so many of them are saying climate change is also a scam I'm like, "Really?" As you say, it hasn't been mainstream for all that long and when I first got interested in AGW I really thought I did due diligence looking at all the climate change denial material to see if it had any validity.
I've come to realise we are told so very many lies but the two things I thought are true are:
--- The moon landings
--- AGW
I have absolutely no doubt about the moon landings and it would take incredible evidence to say they didn't happen but my mind is open on AGW.
There's a data analyst climate skeptic who also has a substack on covid, John Dee. An analysis he did of UK weather stations over a hundred years shows a rise in the night-time temperature but not daytime. This type of rise is explained by climate scientists as the result of increased water vapour making more clouds which reflect heat in the daytime but not nighttime - however, this pattern of temperature rise isn't universal and in other places the pattern is different. Watts Up With That denies the evidence of this phenomenon - it all gets too complicated for me I have to say.
https://jdeeclimate.substack.com/p/interval
You're welcome and thank you for your comments. I had stopped believing in the moon landings but haven't looked into them, perhaps I should. It's interesting that you come down in favour of them. I guess you are not a flat earther, which is also becoming very common. 9/11 has gone for me too?
A climate scientist in 1859 predicted that if humans were increasing the temperature by trapping heat rather than the sun being the most important factor then nights and winters (when the earth should be cooling when the sun's not around so much) should warm faster on average across the globe (not just locally) than days and summers. Researchers claim that this is what has happened. I think it's true. Global temperatures have increased while solar activity has decreased.
I'm so glad that you had the same experience as me. Being part of the no-virus people was great but then suddenly climate change is a scam, vegans are ridiculed and my local stand in the park is now campaigning against emission regulation with placards saying 'co2 is nature's fertiliser'. I'm in no-woman's land. I now roll my eyes at them. I can see how they (and me once or twice) have appeared campaigning against vaccines. It even nearly made me doubt myself I was right about vaccines; they seem so crazy! I knew that everything they were saying about nutrition and animal ag was wrong, so looked into climate change, it seems pretty straight forward to me, it's getting hotter, we're releasing more co2 and cutting down more trees. When I started posting, all the same, disproved, propaganda of climate denial came up again and again.
Jo
🙏🏽
Yes, no one's denying CO2 is an utterly essential part of the ecosystem. Seriously, such obviously strawman arguments drive me utterly nuts!
When I say I don't believe most things 9/11 is top of the list! But for 9/11 they used a False Dilemma propaganda strategy where they made it a choice between A. Terrorists or B. US government when true it was B. but it wasn't B. in the way it's made out it was.
Death and injury were staged ... and oh my goodness is that hard to get across to the so-called "truthers", truthers who are so anchored in their belief of the "evil US government killing all those poor people," they simply cannot be reasoned with.
Not that I don't think they're evil, of course, they are and they are killing and maiming so many people now it's really hard to come to terms with but they didn't kill people on 9/11 - nothing to do with not being evil, it just wasn't what they wanted then and they don't do things they don't want in psyops. Psyops are all about doing only what you want for real and faking the rest. They obviously want to kill and maim now but they didn't then and ironically you can propagandise and coerce health professionals by the thousands and thousands to inject people with dangerous substances in the name of saving them ... but you cannot get demolition professionals to only partially evacuate buildings before destroying them. Regardless of what can and can't be done, the evidence clearly shows that death and injury were faked on 9/11.
“but you cannot get demolition professionals to only partially evacuate buildings before destroying them.”
Wow. I had never thought of that before. Succinct and compelling argument for the “no one was killed in the WTC on 9/11” position.
I very much appreciate your response, Alex. I must've said this online about 10 times without anyone making a comment. I think it's a pretty good point myself especially when coupled with the point that you CAN propagandise and coerce health professionals to behave in a way that achieves a result opposite to the one they're supposed to be aiming for. It's just amazing.
“Moving on to anti-vaxxers. Are they Galileo or the establishment? Clearly Galileo.”
Speak for yourself! I’ll stick to observable reality and geocentrism thanks.
Apart from that, wonderfully provocative read.
oh Ok! Thank you Isaac, I kinda had an hunch that you might appreciate it 🙏🏽
I wonder what the proportion of anti-vaxxers are geocentrics? Were they always geocentrics, I didn't know any 3 years ago and now I know loads?
It has only been over the last few years, and was definitely tied up in the broader pandemic “awakening” process. Astrology also makes more sense to me under this paradigm
Thank you Isaac, yes it all seems to be connected
You are right, climate deniers are The Establishment, same as the Church in Galileo's day. Anyone who spends time on the internet claiming that global warming isn't "real" (and what is "real" anyway?) is serving the great dracular interests of entrenched capital, serving the class that makes money off workers and commodities alike without ever having to work for themselves. The fact that there are denialists posting today on your substack is a measure of how effective the psyops and mindwar techniques of the CIA and Navy have been. People have been brainwashed to believe whatever serves the interests of the investors' cashflows serves their own interests as well. Dialectical materialism is the only way to look at it clearly. It is shocking that this late in the game people can still pretend to believe in the basic physics of tellurian insulation, or as Negarestani calls it, erathication. https://thespouter.substack.com/p/erathication-definition
I've been blocked by prof Michael Mann from his twitter account for politely asking how much of the literature he has read to qualify him to declare what is 'covid' misinformation and what isn't. I've also been banned from Sam Bailey's (who looked into the evidence for a new disease caused by a new virus and couldn't find any, nor can I) youtube and substack channels for saying how misleading she was. She doesn't think it matters how hugely inefficient animal bodies are for turning resources and energy into calories for humans to eat because land and resources (stolen from first nation people in her country) are unlimited and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
I know we all have our biases but I hoped that those lucky enough to have a science background could unite over the literature. Seems not to be the case, on either 'side". We can block what we don't want to hear and say that scientists are lying. It diminishes everyones credibility.
Jo
& I, in turn, don't have the knowledge or even really interest to weigh in on the covid stuff.
Interesting, so if they try again to place 4.4 billion of us under house arrest, wear masks and mandate vaccines, with no evidence whatsoever, you'd go along with it?
yeah jt's the only demonstrably effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Slows down the economy.
? I think you're serious. So it's OK for millions of those living hand to mouth to starve to death, for thousands of elderly to die of loneliness without their loved ones, to put masks on babies and toddlers, that small business should go under as cartels flourish, to override bodily autonomy and coerce publics sector workers into an unnecessary experimental procedure that made $trillions for convicted criminals and fraudsters, that the biggest transfer of wealth in history from the poor to the rich occurred and that it's OK for the establishment to lie to the stupid proles because they don't know what's good for them?
Well, I don't think they'll do another lockdown, regardless of the public health threat--the first one wasn't really effective enough to justify it. I did notice, though, that I got a check in the mail signed by Donald Trump. Haven't gotten one of those before or since. You're not going to convince me that covid doesn't exist, or that viruses don't exist, or whatever it is you think.
Thank you Jed. I have watched how industry has targeted medical freedom with climate denial information and ridicule for anyone on the environmental side. I don't understand all you post but it has also amazed me that people seemingly awake to pharma have allowed themselves to be brainwashed.
We have faced tremendous environmental destruction and degradation over the past century of industrial development, and it continues at a tremendous rate, threatening our air, water, soil, all vegetation and animals, and our very bloodstreams. Pure water and pure food are increasingly scarce, while we are being poisoned from the skies.
These are very real issues. Climate change, man-made or natural, is not.
You've jumped the shark with all this climate hysteria, the last straw for me linking to an article by the massive windbag and fraud Bill McKibben, who makes me ashamed of my alma mater.
Climate is the new scamdemic, and you have only been amplifying the fear mongering that comes from the top down by the controllers, designed to imprison us under phony "sustainable development", a planetary scheme of central planning that tracks and traces all resources and activities and assigns everything a social and carbon credit score.
That is not what I see.
The hugely successful Just stop oil and it's industry funded activists being allowed access to all the top sporting events right up to players and onto the courts and courses for photo ops, plus a laughing Greta yesterday being lifted away by laughing policeman has got the Uk MSM calling JUSt stop oil a 'mob' and climate alarmists and is putting everyone off green issues. Conservatives have abandoned green policies because the electorate has and Labour is saying if elected they would not regulate corporations but let them promise to sort themselves out. They've lost a by election over a minor regulation of a low emission zone extension. We are so far from top down regulation and social credit as is possible to be.
The oil industry made $195 billion last year and wants to ensure it is allowed to take out the $trillions still under the earth and is making a big effort. It's really working.
Reliance on hydrocarbons rather that local sources increases not decreases centralisation and top down control.
Bill Mac made some interesting points about what RFk is saying about viruses (nonsense) and conspiracies. They do always seem to lead to the Jews.
I disagree climate change is human made. The pay-op is to make people think it isn't.
Thank you for following till now.
All the best
Jo
I"ve yet to see someone put side by side the science by presser moments of Aids (by Gallo?) vs. MMR Causes Autism (by Wakefield) Isn't this a great example of a double standard? And to throw one more comparison in the willingness of industry to say that HPV causes Cervical cancer. I realize there may be small differences. But I'd love to hear a break down of the three claims, how they were made, and over what type of evidence.
yes that would be a brilliant juxtaposition
I guess I could ask ChatGPT to spin one up
let me know the answer!
I wonder what Al Gore would have done had he won the presidency. I fell for his "climate change" story then, but not now. We face real threats from pharmaceutical drugs, drones fitted for warfare, cluster bombs, foods laced with toxins, EMF, et al.
We haven't had the hottest day ever recorded (since 1979 or in the last 125,000 years depending on which climate alarmist propaganda rag you read). If you believe that then you are are on the same level as those who believe that the vaccines are necessary, safe and effective.
Interesting you believe that anti-vaxx is in eternal wedlock bliss with climate denial and I am not really an anti vaxxer if I disagree with you.
But that's not what I said. I said that believing we have had the hottest day ever in recorded history (therefore expressing implicitly that this is due to GHG emissions which must be urgently curtailed in order to prevent us from having ever more even hotter days) is equivalent to believing that the vaccines are safe, effective and necessary. Both involve the denial of evidence to the contrary and the embracing of extremely dubious 'scientific' analysis. So basically, if you reject the 'safe, effective and necessary' narrative plugged by the pro-vax camp on the basis of extremely dodgy science and evidence, by the same token, you should also be rejecting the 'hottest day ever' claims made in the media, plus the countless other climate alarmist claims they are making, and have made over the years.
Hiya, are you saying that the NOAA are lying and that the hottest day since 1979 was not in July 2023, if so when was it, or that it was not 17 degrees, if so what was it? You can add the implicit GHG mitigation if you like but I didn't, I said it was hot. If we can't accept any observations from the world at all, even one as simple as how hot it is or what are the symptoms someone has, we're not going to get very far in any analysis of them.
No, I'm not saying that NOAA are lying. I'm saying that the 'data' used to justify the claim that July 4th was the hottest day ever is extremely dubious. NOAA says the same! It was not NOAA who were making the claim.
"For the seven-day period ending Wednesday, the daily average temperature was .04C (.08F) higher than any week in 44 years of record-keeping, according to the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer data.
That metric showed that Earth’s average temperature on Wednesday remained at the record high of 17.18C.
Climate Reanalyzer uses data from the NCEP climate forecast system to provide a time series of daily mean two-metre air temperature, based on readings from surface, air balloon and satellite observations.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), whose figures are considered the gold standard in climate data, said on Thursday it could not validate the unofficial numbers.
It noted that the reanalyzer uses model output data, which it called “not suitable” as substitutes for actual temperatures and climate records. The NOAA monitors global temperatures and records on a monthly and an annual basis, not daily."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/07/un-climate-change-hottest-week-world
ah I see thank you. It's still hot.
Beware of statistics. The reason that NOAA went back to 1979, but not further, is that it was a relatively cold year (it was the coldest year on record in Iceland), and historically much hotter before that. So starting trend analysis at that point makes for a larger increase.
Also, go back and look at statistics from July 4 from 1911, which saw temperatures of over 110 degrees Fahrenheit in normally cool places like Maine and New Hampshire.
Beware of statistics, and the lying liars that manipulate them.
Yes individual places are hotter and colder that's why global composites are used. The NOAA stats go back to 1850 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/1/6/1850-2023
Hi, so according to the NOAA, the best available data from thermometers and stuff the UK in 2022 had its warmest year since national records began in 1884. The UK's yearly temperature of 10.0°C (50.05°F) was 0.1°C (0.2°F) higher than the previous record set in 2014 (9.9°C / 49.8°F). According to the UK's Met Office, the nation's 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2003. Each season ranked among the 10 warmest for their respective seasons. In the UK, a maximum temperature of 40.3°C (104.5°F) was set at Coningsby, Lincolnshire during the month of July — marking the first time in the nation's record that maximum temperatures of 40.0°C (104°F) or higher were set in the UK.- ie the hottest day since 1884. What is the rationale for saying we haven't had the hottest day in 2022?
"What is the rationale for saying we haven't had the hottest day in 2022?"
I presume you mean 2023.
It is certainly not your summary above. What is the rationale for presuming that July 4th 2023 was not the hottest day ever on planet earth (well, at least since 1979 or since the Eemian inerglacial depending on which rag you want to believe)? I have already pointed this out.
I accepted your explaination for the models used for the July 4th- waiting for NOAA confirmation- and have removed it from my post. I wondered what your explanation for the hottest year and day happening in 2022 if you're saying its not getting hotter.
1/ I am not saying that the earth is still not gradually warming over the long term - though it has not warmed at all since at least 2014 - see https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
2/ Some rather dubious 'records' set by poorly sited weather stations in the UK are not proof that the hottest day on earth happened last summer as opposed to this summer.
No statistically significant warming since Sept 2014. So all these 'hottest day/month/year ever' records should be taken with a pinch of salt. The imminent El Nino (a natural weather event) might put an end to the current pause in global mean temperatures. We shall see.
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/image-39.png?ssl=1
Apparently this Is a common ploy. Concede warming but then move the goal posts and say ah but when using really short time periods like 13 month averages and even though both 2016 and 2020 were hotter than 2014 there us no increase in the acceleration of warming! More reasonable time frames of 10 year averages clearly show significant acceleration. And yes we've had a few years of naturally occurring and cooling la nina.
You don't have to be a climate alarmist to be alarmed at unprecedentedly large and early bush fires, droughts affecting the global economy and unbearable high temperatures and humidity for people and animals, which will be worse with el nino, who cares if it's been hot before its never been this hot for us 8 billion and other animals. You come across as callous and angry. I don't get it.
Those who both support climate alarmism and deny the safety and efficacy of all vaccines, are indeed a rare breed.
Here’s what I think. If you care about definitions, epistemology, and the laws of logic, and the burden of proof, with the proper information you’ll come out questioning climate alarmism, vaccine safety, and the very existence of viruses.
On the other hand, if you’re led by your emotions and your highest value is not harming any creature, not even one as small as a virus, well, you may end up on the right side on some issues and the wrong side on others and it’ll have nothing to do with the consistent application of logic to facts.
I've said this 1,000 times over. Take everything the environmentalists say and carry it to the furthest extreme -- because that's where it was always going.
They aren't looking at renewable energy -- they're going for NO ENERGY. The people at the top of these "movements" are trying to enact a Hunger Games type scenario. That's literally where this is headed.
I'm old enough to remember when natural gas was considered clean. But now it's going to kill us all. Faster than the cholesterol in eggs.
Let me give you another example. Remember how there was a hole in the ozone layer, caused my carbon monoxide? What was the correction? Catalytic converters. They took care of the problem. They converted carbon monoxide into CO2 and water.
But solutions are NOT wanted. Now CO2 is bad, and we've moved on from carbon monoxide. Because it was NEVER about the environment -- it was always about control.
The entire environmental movement in all its forms is and always has been about control. Once you understand that, all of these ridiculous ideas make sense.
These people are zealots, they cannot be reasoned with. That's why "the science" is always changing. Not because it's legitimate, but because it's not science -- it's propaganda.
Don't give an inch people! There never going to come to a conclusion that benefits society. They'll always come to a solution that gives them greater control over the lives of individuals.
I see your point. But I'm not claiming that there's a "pure" science. But there are observable things that can be repeatable.
Science and the scientific method link back to Christian scientists trying to explain God's creation. During those early days, there wasn't as much of a bias, because people really just wanted to know "why" and "how" things worked. There was little profit in lying.
What I'm saying is that this new "changing science" doesn't even hold up to the standards of those who claim that it *is* reliable. They are literally just making stuff up, and throwing around the word "science."
On the climate topic, both sides have expressed their views here and elsewhere. To talk more would make the exchange ... overheated :) ... Now, a calm talk about Galileo, from a friend historian:
"The controversy between [Cardinal] Bellarmine and Galileo was based on Augustinian biblical interpretation, on both sides. They accepted that Augustine's argument that a sound proof in natural philosophy must overthrow a literal reading of a biblical text. They disagreed about what would constitute such a proof.
Galileo insisted that mathematics and looking through his newfangled telescope could suffice to disprove geocentrism, Kepler's elliptical orbits and the Jesuits' observations of cometary structure and orbits. Never mind that the Jesuits had seen them through telescopes but he hadn't.
Bellarmine and successive Popes had no problem with Galileo advancing such notions as hypotheses, as their long discussions with him over decades demonstrate. They did not accept that his methods constituted sufficient proof to overthrow traditional readings of the relevant texts, as Galileo persistently insisted they did. Neither mathematics nor observation had previously been regarded as providing anything more than probable explanations in natural philosophy.
The real issue between Bellarmine and Galileo was about Aristotelian methodology. There were several kinds of Aristotelianism available. All of them emphasized that true scientia could only be created through the operation of logic. However, at Padua [where Galileo lived for many years], Averroes was the filter through which Aristotle was read, probably because of the strength of the medical school there. Among medical teachers, Averroes remained the central text until well into the 17th century. At Padua the strength of his influence encouraged a revival of the Aristotelian commitment to empirical enquiry [...]
Galileo claimed that he had proved the real, as opposed to hypothetical, motion of the planets around the sun in perfectly circular motion, on the basis of his mathematics and the use of his newfangled telescope. He was absolutely committed to circular motion, as an expression of the perfection of God, even when the Jesuits told him they had both observed and calculated the elliptical motion of a comet, cutting across the planetary orbits. Galileo had been ill at the time and denounced the observations as an illusion, but his a priori commitment makes it unlikely that he would have accepted elliptical motion even if he had been looking.
Bellarmine held to the traditional view, that proof required logic. [...]
[Galileo] was overconfident, having been a Medici courtier, where definitive proof was not required of him but only elegant presentation. He also felt sure that he would be protected by his personal friendship with the Pope, something so well known that it became a major talking point in his favourite daughter's nunnery.
He pushed it too far, not only publishing his ideas in the form of a dialogue but casting the Pope in the role of the simpleton, by putting his sceptical questions into that character's mouth.
The distinction between the kinds of argument required for philosophical proof and those required for religious belief is a very old one. Indeed, what became modern scepticism was originally promoted by religious reformers such as Savonarola, precisely because they wanted to drive logic out of religion and back into areas where it was more appropriate."
Thank you very interesting. Could you summarise that please? The religious leaders would have been happy to accept that the earth went round the sun (either elliptically or circularly) rather than the other way around if Galileo had proved sufficient proof, which they felt he did not.
Do you feel there is sufficient evidence that the earth goes round the sun even now? This is not an uncontentious issue. Every other person on here seems to be a geocentric or a flat earther.
🙏🏽
‘Just like they argued that the EPA had rigged the science on second hand smoke, Singer and Seitz claimed there was no warming. Then that it was natural. Then that we could adapt to it'
If what you are comparing is as I understand it, the EPA et al. Have rigged the science. Point being if your studies are not thorough enough on this, are your warming theories blinded by your desires to be 'right'. There is copious good evidence from esteemed professionals that sway my paradigm towards natural phenomenon swamping man made problems.
The largest study on the health effects of smoking was based on data gathered from a population in California. The American Cancer Society began collecting the data in 1959. Because the data included health information from more than 35,000 non-smoking spouses, it provided the basis for the longest-running and largest secondhand smoking study ever undertaken. Funded by ACS and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, an anti-smoking organization paid for by California’s cigarette tax, the analysis was undertaken by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
However, as with the IARC study, when the preliminary research indicated the study would fail to provide evidence of a negative passive smoking effect, both ACS and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program withdrew their support. Once word began to circulate about the controversial results, Enstrom and Kabat found themselves unable to find another source of foundation funding. Reluctantly, they accepted funding from the tobacco industry. Their report, published in 2003, found no significant increases in heart disease or lung cancer among non-smokers chronically exposed to secondhand smoke. Anti- smoking advocates closed ranks against Enstrom and Kabat’s paper. The ACS and Stanton Glantz mobilized their forces to undermine its findings. Glantz held a news conference in which, as he put it in an email to his followers, he would “debunk” the report. Predictably, the ACS and Glantz focused on the study having been funded by the tobacco industry, while ignoring the fact that anti-smoking groups had supported the study for 39 of its 40 years—and that it had been largely completed before the tobacco companies entered the picture
Enstrom and Kabat were both respected epidemiologists. Both contributed to early research that first pointed to the danger of smoking, and their integrity had never before been questioned. But the ACS and Glantz’s tactics proved effective in generating public skepticism about their findings. It is a tactic Glantz and others employ to this day. But the anti-smoking activists wanted evidence that secondhand smoke killed in order to heighten concern among nonsmokers. So, they went back to Step 2 in the anti-tobacco playbook and developed a study that would heighten concern desired result
Thank you for this history - really. I knew nothing of it. Since 2000 I've been sympathetic to smokers who seem to be villified by non-smokers. I personally do not smoke, but my mother did. She died age 85 - not so young or premature. Some people in the county where I used to live have gone bonkers outlawing even the smell of cigarette smoke outside the windows of their homes by smokers walking nearby. Unbelievable.
You make good points. As to an alternative to 5G, smoking seems a fine choice. While I prefer champagne, there is the weight gain issue.
Why is it that the poisons we are exposed to without choice are always things that bring a profit to their creators?
yes, we are 🙏🏽
That's a good point... but I'm guessing you don't want to go back to the "previous" way of life. It was way too tough for today's pampered generation. They would mostly faint on contact or shrivel up and die.
Even replacement level consumerism becomes a problem when the population keeps increasing to unsustainable levels.
Something will snap... or has already snapped... but people are good at ignoring signs of collapse and carrying on as if Columbian bananas grow in their local supermarket and Chinese factories will magically continue pumping out replacement goods forever and ever amen.
I think if those with the biggest footprints; the 1% industrial and political elites flying around the world to go to conferences to save the planet, Americans and then the rest of the developed world stopped consumming so much, yes the global economy may collapse, but better that than not having a habitable planet at all. Health wise growing food for allotments proved very beneficial during the war. I don't wish the war back. But I am happy to live simpler and freer.
I'm happy growing food on my land but I know it can't feed me and others around me reliably all year round. I live in a place that had cow carts until the seventies. The older folk round here don't want to go back to that way of life because they know how hard it was without modern inputs and machinery.
If given a choice to live on handouts (palliative care) and take all the shots (to finish the job) or go back to medieval hard labor... most will choose the former.
Yes. That was the problem. Too individualistic and rabidly competitive! They give me a filthy look when I say they should have collaborated more (cooperatives) and not worked half the day to maintain the two cows per house (the cow cart engine).
"They" are my parent's generation that grew up under this subsistence system in Northern Spain. Other parts were just as poor but with different inputs and landscape. So maybe goat and pig herders instead of individual houses owning a bit of everything. Any exchangeable produce would be taken to the local town (20km) on foot to earn a few pesetas for cloth, tools etc. Clothes were washed in the local river. Fields were plowed barefoot or with wooden clogs. Everything was made from the local wood and granite. Then the men started to emigrate and bring in the money. And the drug trade came from South America. And everything changed. All you see now are Mercedes, BMW, and Audi. And tourists. And windmills up on the hill. And more regulations about what you can do on your own land. People still fight over their land markers though! Some things never change.