'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

[Joe Hillshoist]

My country elected a government that brought in a price on carbon emissions 12 years ago and it sparked the biggest shit storm tantrum from the very people who run Davos, that government was thrown out within three years.

And that was because of an appalling propaganda war.

Having seen that, lived thru it, while climate emergencies happened almost yearly here at the time (something that didn't happen when I was young,) with IPA owned politicians saying "well you can't definitely say climate change caused this disaster" after yet another tropical fuckstorm blew half of Qld away or anyother 500 homes were lost to small fires around the country and cunts like Andrew Bolt said anything they could to sow any possible doubt in people's minds, to stop any action at all I just don't believe any of the shit you're posting.

Its the same old crap people have been saying for years.

People are burnt out from climate change disasters in this country. We're sick of hearing fuckwits with no idea what they're on about talking shit about it.

If you are worried about Climate Change being used to push the control freak agenda further and cement power in the hands of a few then focus on what they are doing that furthers their agenda, don't repeat shite talking points they originally funded 20 years ago.

[Harvey]

The Road to Fascism (total merger of corporations and state.)

[Grizzly]

Pierre Poilievre CALLS OUT Trudeau's LOVE AFFAIR with Communist China



----


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/13/toxic-forever-chemicals-pfas-toilet-paper



They really are trying to 'wipe' us out.

[DrEvil]

BS wrote:

My reference points are research papers, raw data sets, and observational analysis (by scientists) over time, not merely photographs. And certainly not models, which are what many climate alarmists reference.

Let's aim to keep this simple, eh?

Then how about posting some of those research papers I've been asking you about for months now? Should be simple enough. You still haven't posted anything to refute the validity of the models for example. If you're so sure the models are wrong then you must be basing that on something more substantive than your gut feeling, right?

Also, the models aren't just used to predict the future, they also predict the past. That's one of the ways they make sure they produce good results - feed them historical data and compare the results to actual history.

And it's funny how the predictions of the past work great, but predicting the future does not until you include humanity's greenhouse gas emissions, and then suddenly the predictions and reality line up again, almost as if man-made emissions are having an impact on the climate or something.

One more thing: you should be careful with raw data. Often you have to normalize and process it before anything useful comes out, the same way you would adjust for socioeconomic status in a medical study for instance. Raw isn't always better.

[Belligerent Savant]

Among the content I shared in this thread, there's plenty authored by scientists, researchers and analysts. You can scroll back. Such content is not based on models. You continue to wave your hands at this content or offer counters that only reinforce status quo modeling projections.

Quite similarly to how so many handled the covid discussion, however, you typically retort with your own scientific data, claiming it's the correct assessment, and my content is, at all times, nothing more than 'oil and gas funded propaganda'.

To stick to the covid comparison a bit longer:
It is now quite clear that, despite all the scientists and doctors that clamored otherwise (for a period of time, it was by all accounts a majority), the 'vaccines' heavily promoted and then mandated turned out NOT to be as advertised at all. They didn't stop circulation of illness or contagion, and in fact have side effect profiles markedly higher than historical vaccines.
Similarly, masks have now been shown to be far less effective at curbing contagion than initially advertised, promoted and mandated by all these so-called health professionals.
(The above assumes these measures were only meant as health mitigation, irrespective of their failures, rather than as successful initial movements towards a cultural/global Reset with far more insidious objectives)

The relative few that clamored against these claims/policies early on were ridiculed as 'anti-science', and far worse.

I share the above comparisons because it's very applicable to this topic. You will display YOUR science as counters to my considerations here. I have shared content from scientists as well. I never claim that all of the content is 100% accurate, or even that i necessarily agree with their postitions in full. But ultimately, one perspective/position will be far closer to reality than the other.

Is it Climate ALARM that's closer to the truth (and along with it, all the measures promoted by many Govt figureheads and their proxies as the lone viable and useful 'solutions')?

Or is it that there are myriad causes for climate fluctuations; that we may well be in the midst of climate fluctuations currently, but everyday human C02 emissions are not primary drivers of such fluctuations, so efforts should focus on pollution mitigation and better mgmt of energy sources, without curbing human rights.

The passage of time will demonstrate if the Doom predictions by those that continue to subscribe to such narratives play out as insisted they will (even though, historically, most predictions have simply not come to pass), and more critically, if ANY of the predominant 'solutions' offered by these entities -- govts, bureaucrats and their very wealthy donors -- actually resolve any climate related fluctuations without further curtailing fundamental human rights.

Both you and Joe -- and others here and elsewhere -- continue to refuse to address this directly (namely: that policies being promoted to address Climate Alarm are fascist policies), or otherwise scoff at such notions.

Those that subscribe to extreme circumstances will fall for or subscribe to extreme actions, with apparently minimal critical discernment or consideration that, perhaps, there are other factors in play.


https://twitter.com/MatthewWielicki/sta ... 70754?s=20

[DrEvil]

BelSav wrote:

Among the content I shared in this thread, there's plenty authored by scientists, researchers and analysts. You can scroll back. Such content is not based on models. You continue to wave your hands at this content or offer counters that only reinforce status quo modeling projections.

I just went back and looked through this entire thread looking at everything you've shared, and there's literally nothing about models other than you repeatedly proclaiming they're not reliable. You haven't posted a single source to back that up. Nothing, nada, zip. You also still haven't said a word about the article showing how models and predictions line up, or the picture of the airport in the Maldives flooding, or how you misunderstood what the paper about multidecadal oscillations in the Arctic said, or any of countless other things I've brought up. What I did find was pages and pages of myself responding, often point by point, to your claims and sources about the science, and you either ignoring my answers, moving the goalposts or just hand-waving them away with some muttered comment about indoctrination and covid.

So, once again: please post links to research casting doubt on the accuracy of the models and the extent to which humans are responsible for the warming. Not about policies or capitalist exploitation, and not blog posts, tweets, declarations, class notes, articles or opinion pieces - actual research about the underlying science.

[stickdog99]

The undemocratic tyranny of Net Zero

[Belligerent Savant]

So, once again: please post links to research casting doubt on the accuracy of the models and the extent to which humans are responsible for the warming. Not about policies or capitalist exploitation, and not blog posts, tweets, declarations, class notes, articles or opinion pieces - actual research about the underlying science.

I’ve posted content from a variety of sources in this thread, though they aren’t exhaustive. There’s ample content out there on the flaws of models/modeling (if one harbors a genuine interest in open-minded due diligence, these critiques can be tracked down. Some are more compelling than others, as it is with any viewpoint), not just related to climate science, but also as applied in other sciences as well. Covid modeling was one of the most recent egregious examples of modeling failures, though climate-related models have been inaccurate, historically, on a recurring basis. I imagine some models will be more accurate than others, but generally they are prone to bias, confounders and preferred criteria to maximize desired results — namely: ALARM, which is at odds with historical and current data that suggests a more cyclical/gradual fluctuation, which of course will require mitigation regardless, but once again, NONE of the mitigation should involve curtailing human rights/freedoms*. No justification for it.

*yes, I actually typed free-dumb. This is now practically a graphic and offensive word in some circles. While I appreciate the word is often utilized by The Deplorables, it’s yet another (of many) examples of tactics employed to re-frame words as a means to prime, condition, and manipulate.

When assessing how such models and narratives are currently being utilized to push increasingly restrictive/draconian measures with FEAR as the backdrop, a clear and distinct recurring theme presents itself.
Any sober assessment of these developments should raise eyebrows and encourage re-examination. Instead, many of the subscribers of climate alarm double down.

Of course, you and others here can continue to believe what you believe— and continue to believe any criticisms or scrutiny of climate alarm can only come from those propagandized by the oil & gas lobbies.

I have a better understanding of the psychology in play here; it no longer surprises me.

[DrEvil]

So, once again: please post links to research casting doubt on the accuracy of the models and the extent to which humans are responsible for the warming. Not about policies or capitalist exploitation, and not blog posts, tweets, declarations, class notes, articles or opinion pieces - actual research about the underlying science.

I’ve posted content from a variety of sources in this thread, though they aren’t exhaustive. There’s ample content out there on the flaws of models/modeling (if one harbors a genuine interest in open-minded due diligence, these critiques can be tracked down. Some are more compelling than others, as it is with any viewpoint), not just related to climate science, but also as applied in other sciences as well. Covid modeling was one of the most recent egregious examples of modeling failures, though climate-related models have been inaccurate, historically, on a recurring basis. I imagine some models will be more accurate than others, but generally they are prone to bias, confounders and preferred criteria to maximize desired results — namely: ALARM, which is at odds with historical and current data that suggests a more cyclical/gradual fluctuation, which of course will require mitigation regardless, but once again, NONE of the mitigation should involve curtailing human rights/freedoms*. No justification for it.

*yes, I actually typed free-dumb. This is now practically a graphic and offensive word in some circles. While I appreciate the word is often utilized by The Deplorables, it’s yet another (of many) examples of tactics employed to re-frame words as a means to prime, condition, and manipulate.

When assessing how such models and narratives are currently being utilized to push increasingly restrictive/draconian measures with FEAR as the backdrop, a clear and distinct recurring theme presents itself.
Any sober assessment of these developments should raise eyebrows and encourage re-examination. Instead, many of the subscribers of climate alarm double down.

Of course, you and others here can continue to believe what you believe— and continue to believe any criticisms or scrutiny of climate alarm can only come from those propagandized by the oil & gas lobbies.

I have a better understanding of the psychology in play here; it no longer surprises me.

So that's a no?

As I said, I went back and looked at everything you've posted in this thread, and on the very few occasions you posted actual research you misunderstood or misrepresented what the papers were saying, and you still haven't posted anything to back up your claims about the models.

There is psychology in play here, but it's not what you think.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
No, I didn’t misunderstand the research.

This statement here is quite unequivocal:

"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2. page 774.

Since the time the above statement was written the rhetoric has only become more unhinged, particularly in the post-2020 version of our timeline.

That you refuse to acknowledge this speaks only to your rigidity and dogma.

While I may not fully agree with every point of the following, it represents a markedly more nuanced take than whatever you’ve offered here:

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
@MatthewWielicki

Some of the main takeaways from my writings:

1) climate change is real and not a hoax
2) the climate over the last 1M years is remarkably unstable with glacial and interglacial ossicliations due to minor orbital forcing and low CO2
3) there is no global temperature and CO2s role in regulating atmospheric temperature is significantly overstated
4) climate models are gross oversimplifications of the coupled, nonlinear chaotic climate system and do not capture the complexity of the system
5) catastrophic events have not trended up with the current 1.1C of warming and there is no indication that they will with the next 1C of warming.
6) a gradual replacing of fossil fuels is inevitable as they are finite and do cause combustion related pollutants to enter the atmosphere
7) solar and wind will never be able to provide reliable base load power without significant habitat and species loss due to the amount of land required
8 ) Catastrophizing of weather events is causing significant decline in mental health and driving anxiety in young people
9) Reducing access to fossil fuels for developing countries will keep large parts of the population in abject poverty for significantly longer than necessary

Let me know what you think and thank you for all the support I have received. #climate #energy
9:12 AM · Mar 23, 2023

This piece here is also worth a read, given recent pronouncements from the IPCC -

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/ha ... dium=email

Excerpts:

…

The new report downplays research showing that extreme scenarios are increasingly implausible and once again centers research that emphasizes RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5. The report justifies this emphasis when it states in a footnote buried deep in the report:

“Very high emission scenarios have become less likely but cannot be ruled out.”

This is far too clever. An alien invasion next week is also low likelihood, but cannot be ruled out.

None of the relevant literature on scenario plausibility is cited in the Synthesis Report, despite appearing in the most recent IPCC assessment reports. The “cannot ruled out” gambit gives the IPCC a way to keep extreme scenarios at the center of the report while evading any discussion of plausibility.

The coverage of the report has been predictably apocalyptic in response to the IPCC’s framing. Here are a few examples:

NBC News
@NBCNews

BREAKING: Time is running out to secure a liveable future on earth, new UN report says.

Scientists found that a key aim of the Paris climate agreement — to limit global warming to 1.5 C° — may be out of reach.

Greta Thunberg
@GretaThunberg

Today, after yesterday's #IPCC report, everything is back to normal – as always. We continue to ignore the climate crisis as if nothing happened. Our societies are still in denial, and those in power go on with their never ending quests to maximise profits. We cannot afford this.

Greta is right that the IPCC didn’t even win the daily news cycle this week. Perhaps that’s because it recycled the exact same messaging (“liveable future”) as it did when it released its Working Group 2 report from just one year ago. Or maybe that’s because the IPCC has reduced itself to the sort of content-free cheerleading that is so common in the climate space: Someone should do something, dammit!

The report emphasizes another phrase – climate-resilient development -- which was also included in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, which is a lot like motherhood and apple pie, who could possibly object to the idea?

But when it comes to policy specifics, the IPCC is pretty thin. In its press release accompanying the report, the IPCC emphasizes “walking, cycling and public transport.” Um, OK, sure. But the full report makes no mention of nuclear energy, has only a few passing mentions of natural gas, and just one mention of energy access. The report includes a lot of phrasing that sounds like it emerged from a university faculty committee:

Actions that prioritise equity, climate justice, social justice and inclusion lead to more sustainable outcomes, co-benefits, reduce trade-offs, support transformative change and advance climate resilient development.

Sure, that is all great. Where are actual policy options?

Perhaps the most glaring omission by the report is on the science of “loss and damage” which is emphasized throughout the report. The Synthesis Report is not the only part of the IPCC that has ignored data and evidence on the economic and human cost of disasters, as I have frequently documented here.

The IPCC makes a big deal about “loss and damage” as a central reason why action is needed:

Economic impacts attributable to climate change are increasingly affecting peoples' livelihoods and are causing economic and societal impacts across national boundaries.

What does the data on “loss and damage” say? That seems like an important question that the IPCC might have explored over the past nine years.

The IPCC doesn’t answer this question, despite such data being readily available and a voluminous peer-reviewed literature on the subject. Instead, the IPCC relies on a series vague, imprecise and readily mis-interpretable statements.

How difficult would have been to include the graph below in any IPCC report of the past 9 years?


Global disasters related to weather and climate have not increased. Their impacts on people affected, lives lost and damage as a proportion of GDP have all decreased

Readers here will know that the overall number of weather and climate disasters have decreased so far this century, economic losses as down as a proportion of economic activity and deaths and people affected by extremes are sharply down in recent decades.

In an effort to aid the work of the IPCC in 2020 I published a literature review of 54 studies on loss and damage which quantified the relative roles of climate and development in economic losses from weather extremes. The IPCC not only ignored my review, but in its literature review it also ignored 53 of the 54 papers, choosing to cite only one paper which asserted the attribution of losses to greenhouse gas emissions – the other 53 did not. None of this data or research gets mentioned by the IPCC, which is just remarkable.

Between the IPCC Synthesis Report’s evasion of the most recent literature on scenarios and the games it has played with loss and damage research and evidence, the IPCC is skating close to becoming a source of climate misinformation.

It is time for a new approach.

[DrEvil]

.
No, I didn’t misunderstand the research.

So you didn't post this then?

The six scientists still attribute some global warming to human causes. The Northern hemisphere is characterised by “several multidecadal climate trends that have been attributed to anthropogenic climate change”. But producing work that predicts 30 years of global cooling puts them outside the ‘settled’ narrative that claims human-produced carbon dioxide is the main – possibly the only – determinant of global and local temperatures. At the very least, it tamps down the hysteria pushing for almost immediate and punitive 'net-zero' measures.

About this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00275-1

To which the study had this to say:

Multidecadal oscillations not to be confused with reduced warming, says study

https://phys.org/news/2022-12-multideca ... tions.html

Can you spot the trend?

This statement here is quite unequivocal:

"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2. page 774.

Sure, unless you include the full paragraph:

In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate
research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The
most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability
distribution of the system’s future possible states by the genera-
tion of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate
change to the discernment of significant differences in the statis-
tics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles
will require the dedication of greatly increased computer
resources and the application of new methods of model
diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate
is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is
essential.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... report.pdf

Also remember this was written 22 years ago. Computing power and models have improved immensely since then. Rough napkin Moore gets you several thousand times more computing power alone.

Since the time the above statement was written the rhetoric has only become more unhinged, particularly in the post-2020 version of our timeline.

That you refuse to acknowledge this speaks only to your rigidity and dogma.

While I may not fully agree with every point of the following, it represents a markedly more nuanced take than whatever you’ve offered here:

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
@MatthewWielicki

Some of the main takeaways from my writings:

1) climate change is real and not a hoax
2) the climate over the last 1M years is remarkably unstable with glacial and interglacial ossicliations due to minor orbital forcing and low CO2
3) there is no global temperature and CO2s role in regulating atmospheric temperature is significantly overstated
4) climate models are gross oversimplifications of the coupled, nonlinear chaotic climate system and do not capture the complexity of the system
5) catastrophic events have not trended up with the current 1.1C of warming and there is no indication that they will with the next 1C of warming.
6) a gradual replacing of fossil fuels is inevitable as they are finite and do cause combustion related pollutants to enter the atmosphere
7) solar and wind will never be able to provide reliable base load power without significant habitat and species loss due to the amount of land required
8 ) Catastrophizing of weather events is causing significant decline in mental health and driving anxiety in young people
9) Reducing access to fossil fuels for developing countries will keep large parts of the population in abject poverty for significantly longer than necessary

Let me know what you think and thank you for all the support I have received. #climate #energy
9:12 AM · Mar 23, 2023

This piece here is also worth a read, given recent pronouncements from the IPCC -

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/ha ... dium=email

Excerpts:

…

The new report downplays research showing that extreme scenarios are increasingly implausible and once again centers research that emphasizes RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5. The report justifies this emphasis when it states in a footnote buried deep in the report:

“Very high emission scenarios have become less likely but cannot be ruled out.”

This is far too clever. An alien invasion next week is also low likelihood, but cannot be ruled out.

None of the relevant literature on scenario plausibility is cited in the Synthesis Report, despite appearing in the most recent IPCC assessment reports. The “cannot ruled out” gambit gives the IPCC a way to keep extreme scenarios at the center of the report while evading any discussion of plausibility.

The coverage of the report has been predictably apocalyptic in response to the IPCC’s framing. Here are a few examples:

NBC News
@NBCNews

BREAKING: Time is running out to secure a liveable future on earth, new UN report says.

Scientists found that a key aim of the Paris climate agreement — to limit global warming to 1.5 C° — may be out of reach.

Greta Thunberg
@GretaThunberg

Today, after yesterday's #IPCC report, everything is back to normal – as always. We continue to ignore the climate crisis as if nothing happened. Our societies are still in denial, and those in power go on with their never ending quests to maximise profits. We cannot afford this.

Greta is right that the IPCC didn’t even win the daily news cycle this week. Perhaps that’s because it recycled the exact same messaging (“liveable future”) as it did when it released its Working Group 2 report from just one year ago. Or maybe that’s because the IPCC has reduced itself to the sort of content-free cheerleading that is so common in the climate space: Someone should do something, dammit!

The report emphasizes another phrase – climate-resilient development -- which was also included in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, which is a lot like motherhood and apple pie, who could possibly object to the idea?

But when it comes to policy specifics, the IPCC is pretty thin. In its press release accompanying the report, the IPCC emphasizes “walking, cycling and public transport.” Um, OK, sure. But the full report makes no mention of nuclear energy, has only a few passing mentions of natural gas, and just one mention of energy access. The report includes a lot of phrasing that sounds like it emerged from a university faculty committee:

Actions that prioritise equity, climate justice, social justice and inclusion lead to more sustainable outcomes, co-benefits, reduce trade-offs, support transformative change and advance climate resilient development.

Sure, that is all great. Where are actual policy options?

Perhaps the most glaring omission by the report is on the science of “loss and damage” which is emphasized throughout the report. The Synthesis Report is not the only part of the IPCC that has ignored data and evidence on the economic and human cost of disasters, as I have frequently documented here.

The IPCC makes a big deal about “loss and damage” as a central reason why action is needed:

Economic impacts attributable to climate change are increasingly affecting peoples' livelihoods and are causing economic and societal impacts across national boundaries.

What does the data on “loss and damage” say? That seems like an important question that the IPCC might have explored over the past nine years.

The IPCC doesn’t answer this question, despite such data being readily available and a voluminous peer-reviewed literature on the subject. Instead, the IPCC relies on a series vague, imprecise and readily mis-interpretable statements.

How difficult would have been to include the graph below in any IPCC report of the past 9 years?


Global disasters related to weather and climate have not increased. Their impacts on people affected, lives lost and damage as a proportion of GDP have all decreased

Readers here will know that the overall number of weather and climate disasters have decreased so far this century, economic losses as down as a proportion of economic activity and deaths and people affected by extremes are sharply down in recent decades.

In an effort to aid the work of the IPCC in 2020 I published a literature review of 54 studies on loss and damage which quantified the relative roles of climate and development in economic losses from weather extremes. The IPCC not only ignored my review, but in its literature review it also ignored 53 of the 54 papers, choosing to cite only one paper which asserted the attribution of losses to greenhouse gas emissions – the other 53 did not. None of this data or research gets mentioned by the IPCC, which is just remarkable.

Between the IPCC Synthesis Report’s evasion of the most recent literature on scenarios and the games it has played with loss and damage research and evidence, the IPCC is skating close to becoming a source of climate misinformation.

It is time for a new approach.

I have a suggestion for a new approach (from you): post the research casting doubt on the accuracy of the models and the degree to which humans are responsible for observed warming.

[Harvey]

What is the accuracy of modelling generally? In light of the the last few years, when we saw a fictional danger presented as reality, meanwhile reality became cheap horror fiction with the complicity of every single organ of state and commerce of almost every nation on a global scale.

How does that not suggest something epochal has occurred?

Climate is a mere cherry on top for the people who brought us covid and the Ukraine war. By 2025 they have promised economic meltdown, World War III (or IV) and the mother of all Pandemic responses, whether there's a pandemic or not.

Point is, what makes you think you and I will survive long enough to be affected by climate? Do we have under ground bunkers as they do? Shit, for all you know, these crazy mother fuckers are planning on nuclear winter to combat global warming and thin the herd at the same time.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Doc Evil:

when I post studies here they should not serve as a blanket endorsement of all content without reservations.

It should be abundantly clear by now that many studies are often prone to bias, underlying funding or various other confounders. In other instances, the words in studies are often carefully tailored, especially in the conclusions section, to increase the potential of being published. These traits are no longer "secrets". Of course, there are ample scenarios when none of the above applies -- the scientists/authors are expressing earnest viewpoints based on their interpretations of models and information they reviewed.

Again, as alluded by Harvey (and a number of us here, especially over the last ~3yrs), nothing put forth by establishment science, politics, or media should be taken at face value. Ever thus, but more pointedly so since ~2020. They are markedly more brazen, overt, and insidious.

That said, I appreciate how blanket cynicism also runs the risk of discarding certain views outright, perhaps prematurely, but for the most part I do not believe this applies consistently to most that remain here.

A few years ago I accepted most of the "climate change" narratives as put forth by media and (heavily funded) science. Additional digging and reading have led me down a distinct path, one that remains subject to change, though the consistent theme is quite simple: there are far more egregious lies out there, including Big Lies, than truths. In time, this will be more widely acknowledged.

Re: Nature, an added data point for consideration:

Mike Hart, M.D
@drmikehart
·
Nature, a once reputable journal, now admits that they endorse political candidates.

Science has been destroyed and has been replaced by politics.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00789-5

EDITORIAL
20 March 2023

Should Nature endorse political candidates? Yes — when the occasion demands it

https://twitter.com/drmikehart/status/1 ... 05537?s=20

@monitoringbias

The slow corruption of Nature.

Nature, pre-2020: "We are a scientific journal. Politics has no place in our pages."

2020-2022: "We are a scientific journal that is committed to Antiracism. This is not the same as being political."

2023: "We will endorse political candidates."

@EPoe187

How quickly would people on the left become science “deniers” if prestigious science journals endorsed DeSantis for president?

https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/stat ... 72256?s=20

Any scientist that earnestly subscribes to partisan politics -- especially mainstream politics as currently construed in this zeitgeist -- is a fool, regardless of credentials.

[DrEvil]

^^Why is it so hard for you to just answer a simple question? I've been repeating it in almost every reply to you for the last year, and you've consistently ignored it.

[DrEvil]

What is the accuracy of modelling generally? In light of the the last few years, when we saw a fictional danger presented as reality, meanwhile reality became cheap horror fiction with the complicity of every single organ of state and commerce of almost every nation on a global scale.

How does that not suggest something epochal has occurred?

Climate is a mere cherry on top for the people who brought us covid and the Ukraine war. By 2025 they have promised economic meltdown, World War III (or IV) and the mother of all Pandemic responses, whether there's a pandemic or not.

Point is, what makes you think you and I will survive long enough to be affected by climate? Do we have under ground bunkers as they do? Shit, for all you know, these crazy mother fuckers are planning on nuclear winter to combat global warming and thin the herd at the same time.

Call me an optimist, but I don't find it very helpful to go around assuming we'll all be dead any minute now so nothing matters. I also don't think "they" are planning all-out nuclear war, for the simple reason it would seriously suck for them too. Doesn't matter how nice your bunker is if that's all you'll ever see for the rest of your life. No fun being the most powerful person around when "around" is your house and nothing else.

And the models have been pretty accurate so far:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud ... ons-right/