Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:42 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:10 am
As far as I know, "real science" is being done in the area of climate change.
What does that mean, Gary..."as far as I know," and "real science is being done"?
We know some phony pseudo-science is being done, for sure. Windmills, solar panels, electric cars, recycling...these are not "scientific" solutions, but merely speculative efforts to convince the public we're "doing something" while we make the problem worse. So where is this "real science," and by which people is it "being done"?
And you say, "in the area of climate change." What about it has this "real science" delivered to us? How do we know the "real science" from the scam-artist pseudo-science we're being fed in the media, so often?
Who is convincing us? How "far" do we really "know," then?
Not very far, I'm thinking.
Vested economic interests that fear financial penalties to their own personal fortunes (resulting from proposed policies that climate scientists arrive at the need for) seem to be the ones most interested in conspiring to create cognitive dissonance on the matter.
There may be some of those, such as wanton polluters who don't want to be capped. China and India are full of such industries, but one has a hard time blaming them, since they're going through their own Industrial Revolution periods, and trying to get millions of people out of poverty. Still, in that process, China and India are the zones that are likely to kill us with climate change. It's certainly not Britain or North America that will have any impact -- that much, we know for sure.
But what about the "vested economic interests" that have marshalled their forces to commit us to these environmentally-disastrous "climate" policies that we have right now? Who makes a profit on our belief in recycling and windmills? Who's winning by convincing us to buy electric cars that are actually MORE environmentally damaging than gasoline ones, and make us dependent on heavy metals culled by slave labour from the developing world? Who won there? And who is gaining the advantage by sending us into irrational environmental panics without providing us with the definite science to back their claims? And which academics are making careers off the climate crisis? And so on.
So there are financial manipulators on both sides. My argument would be that we have to look to the science that is backed by properly-done studies. But you and I haven't seen a lot of those yet. We're just reassured by the media that they must exist somewhere, so "as far as we know," science says we ought to panic.
It all doesn't make sense, Gary.
Then there are people like you who seem to think that those engaged in laborious science on climate change are in some sort of conspiracy with 'powermongers' who secretly just want to control people for the empty sake of controlling people.
I'm sorry...did you find some "labourious science" I don't know about? Maybe you'll send me those references, so I can figure out just how "labourious" and decisive they are...
Or are you only trusting those who are telling you that such exist? And why are they wanting you to trust them, if they don't provide the evidence?
The greatest conspirators in our world are economic entities seeking profit in cases where science contradicts their pursuit of economic gain.
White hats and black hats, right, Gary? The climate panickers wear the white hats, and get to assign the black hats to nameless "industrial tycoons" who are doing us wrong....
Yes, Gary, there can be greedy industrialists. And back in the '70s, maybe, during the first oil crisis, maybe the split worked something like the way you're saying. But nowadays, why are all the rich tycoons backing the environmentalist movement? If the story you're telling yourself is true, then the richest among us should be the ones fighting against climate change rhetoric. They should, like the tobacco industry did, be buying up media and producing pseudo-studies to prove their practices are "healthy" or "climate friendly." They should be blocking reform, shutting down political parties that campaign on climate, and protecting their assets, should they not? But it seems that all the really big money-holders, like the manipulative meddlers at the WEF or the chairmen of major corporations and banks, are championing climate change rhetoric...so you need to ask yourself what they know that you might not.