Home » Posts tagged 'science'

Tag Archives: science

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

July 9, 2024 Readings

July 9, 2024 Readings

The meme that is destroying Western civilisation Part V–Steve Keen

Food Ecomodernism And The Emptying Of Politics, Part 1–Chris Smaje

Global News Round-up: Let them Eat Bugs–Robert Malone

After Leftist Lobbying, German Bank Kills AfD Donation Account–Armageddon Prose

Weak Data Says a Recession Has Already Started, Let’s Now Discuss When – MishTalk

Corporate Media Is An Unreliable Narrator–Matt Orsagh

This Civilization Is Not Interested In Saving Itself–The Honest Sorcerer

OMG Haaretz Is Hamas Propaganda Now! – by Caitlin Johnstone 

Alaska’s top-heavy glaciers are approaching an irreversible tipping point–Bethan Davies

‘I had to downgrade my life’ – US workers in debt to buy groceries–BBC News

The Public Cost of Private Science–Nautil.us

No Reform or Leader Is Going to Save the Status Quo–We’re On Our Own–Charles Hugh Smith

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS – The Burning Platform

It’s All MMT: The Fraud Of ‘Monetary Policy’ | ZeroHedge

Master Class On Strategic Organised Resistance: Class 1–Collapse Curriculum

From Prosecutor to Censor: Barbara McQuade’s Call to Erode Free Speech–Reclaim The Net

100 Miles South Of Salt Lake City, A New Type Of Off-Grid Community | ZeroHedge

US Farmers Hoard Corn Like It’s 1988 | ZeroHedge

Exposed: How Climate Racketeers Aim to Force Us into Smart Gulags

Exposed: How Climate Racketeers Aim to Force Us into Smart Gulags

In Australia and NZ, “managed retreat” schemes could force people out of homes that “climate change” models render “uninsurable”

Shocking evidence is emerging from Australia and New Zealand of how the climate scam is being used to impose a techno-totalitarian smart-city future.

The criminocratic global imperialists often use their Commonwealth colonies to try out the most insidious escalations of their tyranny – think of Canada, New Zealand and Australia during Covid.

We can therefore assume that this is going to be the blueprint for the roll-out of their Fourth Industrial Revolution agenda across the world.

The sinister scheme in question, called “Managed Retreat”, has been exposed by independent researcher Kate Mason on her excellent Substack blog aimed at “deconstructing 4IR narratives”.

The idea is that exaggerated “modelling” of the imagined effects of “climate change” is being used to define certain areas as unsuitable for human settlement.

Working hand in hand with the state is the insurance industry – long a central part of the corrupt criminocratic empire – which deems homes in these areas to be “uninsurable”.

Banks are also playing their part (of course!) saying they are unwilling to provide mortgages for these “uninsurable” properties.

In her latest article, Kate refers to a TV report about Kensington Banks, near Melbourne city centre, which has been newly declared a flood zone.

She writes: “Property prices are expected to plummet by 20 percent. I think that’s rather conservative – who is going to buy in a flood zone? Unless it’s a developer who will raze it all to the ground and build a Smart Resilient complex”.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, residents are up in arms about attempts to impose “retreat” from coastal areas under the pretext of a predicted rise in sea levels.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The Dangerous Illusion of Scientific Consensus

The Dangerous Illusion of Scientific Consensus

Join Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Rav Arora in their new independent media project.


Science is the process by which we learn about the workings of material reality. Though modern innovations – built on the fruits of science – would look like magic to people living only decades ago, they result from the time-tested scientific method. Contrary perhaps to media portrayals of science, the scientific method depends not on the existence of a mythical consensus but rather on structured scientific debates. If there is a consensus, science challenges it with new hypotheses, experiments, logic, and critical thinking. Ironically, science advances because it believes it has never arrived; consensus is the hallmark of dead science.

One of us is a college student with an unpremeditated career in alternative indie journalism. The other is a professor of health policy at Stanford University School of Medicine with an MD, a Ph.D. in economics, and decades of experience writing on infectious disease epidemiology. Despite the wealth of differences in our backgrounds and experiences, we converge on foundational scientific and ethical principles that public health authorities abandoned during the Covid pandemic. Principles like evidence-based medicine, informed consent, and the necessity of scientific debate serve as the bedrock on which the public can have confidence that science and public health work for the benefit of the people rather than regardless of it.

The illusion of scientific consensus throughout the COVID-19 pandemic led to disastrous policies, with lockdowns the primary example. It was clear even on the eve of the lockdowns in 2020 that the economic dislocation caused by them would throw tens of millions worldwide into food insecurity and deep poverty, which has indeed come to pass. It was clear that school closures – in some places lasting two years or longer – would devastate children’s life opportunities and future health and well-being wherever they were implemented…

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

‘Gold mine’ of century-old wheat varieties could help breeders restore long lost traits

‘Gold mine’ of century-old wheat varieties could help breeders restore long lost traits

Historic traits could make modern wheat more resilient to disease and other stressors

Wheat Harvest in Narromine Australia New South Wales probably 1920s
Some of the historic wheat in a century-old collection was gathered from as far as Australia.KGPA LTD/ALAMY
issue cover image

Table of contents
A version of this story appeared in Science, Vol 384, Issue 6702.Download PDF

An antique collection of wheat from around the world could breathe new vigor into the staple. When plant breeders created modern wheat during the 19th and 20th centuries, they focused on crossing and selectively breeding a few key varieties, creating a finicky racehorse of a crop: high yielding but vulnerable to disease, heat, and drought and reliant on a liberal application of fertilizer. Part of the solution, according to a study published today by Naturemay lie in the genetic diversity in 827 kinds of wheat, many of them long vanished from farms.

The research is the culmination of a massive, decadelong effort to characterize those crop populations, or landraces—sequencing their genomes, planting them in fields, and scrutinizing their traits. “It is a herculean work,” says geneticist Jorge Dubcovsky of the University of California, Davis, who wasn’t involved in the study. “This will be a fantastic new resource for the global wheat research community.” Already scientists have identified genes that, if bred into modern wheat, could reduce the crop’s need for nitrogen fertilizer and increase its resistance to wheat blast, a disease now threatening harvests in much of the world.

The landrace collection was assembled in England starting in 1924, when Arthur Ernest Watkins joined the University of Cambridge’s Plant Breeding Institute. Watkins was studying wheat anatomy, examining variation in traits such as the leaflike structures at the top of the stalk. He realized these traits might help with differentiating landraces…

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXX–She Blinded Me With Science, and More on the ‘Clean’ Energy Debate…

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXX

She Blinded Me With Science, and More on the ‘Clean’ Energy Debate…

For whatever reason, I just can’t seem to help myself…

The most relevant issue for the first part of this Contemplation is a loose definition and lack of agreement at the outset on what all of us involved in the shared conversation below mean by the word ‘science’. It can refer to a body of knowledge, but it can also refer to a method of ascertaining this knowledge. 

From my perspective, the scientific method, in its ideal form, is perhaps one of the best ways our species has developed for helping us to understand many aspects of our universe; not all, of course, but many. It fails, however, in reaching universal ‘truths’ in many other aspects and I would argue this is particularly so in the areas where humans are involved but also where complex systems exist. Put complex systems and humans together, and all bets are off as to whether even the most sound use of the scientific method can reach definitive and totally objective conclusions. 

A further issue, as my comments below hopefully demonstrate, is that the methodological practice is carried out by us totally subjective, story-telling apes and so the conclusions can be suspect as can much of the body of knowledge we garner from it. And there should be nothing wrong or controversial about skepticism towards such knowledge. Such skepticism is, in fact, (or at least should be) an integral part of the process. As this paper argues, “…In science, being skeptical does not mean doubting the validity of everything, nor does it mean being cynical. Rather, to be skeptical is to judge the validity of a claim based on objective empirical evidence. David Hume, the 18th century philosopher, asserted that we should accept no things as true unless the evidence available makes the non-existence of the thing more miraculous than its existence. Even extraordinary claims can be true, but the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required…To be skeptical does not mean dismissing claims—even extraordinary claims—out of hand. It means examining the available evidence before reaching a decision or withholding judgment until sufficient evidence is had. One should not start with the assumption that a claim cannot be true any more than one should start with the assumption that a claim must be true. All reasonable evidence on both sides should be considered. Skepticism is a critical feature of a scientific repertoire. Indeed, many of the most prominent skeptics are and have been some of the world’s most prominent scientists, including Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and Carl Sagan…”

Many people, however, take extreme umbrage when their ‘science’ is skeptically viewed. This occurs for a number of psychological reasons, not least of which would be the cognitive dissonance it can lead to. To reduce the anxiety/stress that can result when one’s beliefs are questioned, our fight/flight responses take over and we lash out by ‘attacking’ the critic or simply ignore/deny their perspective. 

Don’t get me wrong, ‘science’ is great; I love it and practised it somewhat in an earlier life. However, my time engulfed in that world and experiences/reading since have led me to better understand the human tendencies that impact its practice and story-telling. This is especially so in the past number of years where it all seems to be turning far more ‘political’ in nature, where ‘science’ is being leveraged as a new ‘religion’ that cannot be questioned and is used to justify/rationalise social policy and action (i.e., socio-political, -economic, -cultural) by those at the top of our power and wealth structures. 

I use ‘science’ to bolster my arguments about those things I discuss and I try (but am not always successful) in couching my words and ideas as possibilities, probabilities, and in terms of evidence. I believe there are paths ahead that are more likely than others based on the evidence humans have observed and gathered, but I also understand that such paths may go in some completely different or unseen way. Much uncertainty exists and, of course, humans loathe uncertainty so we seek certainty regardless of sound evidence. 

The meme in question struck me as problematic in a few ways but perhaps mostly because of the us versus them intonation, and the idea that if you’re not ‘with us’ then you’re ‘against’ us and the reason we don’t reach our potential and succeed at this experiment of life (especially via our ingenuity and technology, all the result of ‘science’). 

My conversation with others within a FB Group (Neil deGrasse Tyson) on the topic of ‘science’ in response to the Bill Nye meme:

Steve Bull
Would that be the science that led humanity to 10,000+ nuclear warheads? Or maybe the science that leveraged hydrocarbons to help put us into ecological overshoot and helped to destroy the ecological systems all life depends upon. ‘Science’ has been as much a curse as a saviour.

SG
Steve Bull, Discoveries and invention always have the capacity to be used or misused. Science is about discovering the nature of things. We can’t stop doing that. It is humans that are flawed not science.

Steve Bull
SG, Yes, and who carries out the science and the interpretation of observable phenomena? Humans. Humans that can never be completely objective and interpret the universe through biased eyes. Conclusions based upon perfectly performed scientific methods still require interpretation. And especially when systems being studied are complex and are impacted by nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena, it is impossible to control all the variables to thoroughly test hypotheses and reach absolute certainty. Throw on top of this the incentives that influence research (socio-cultural/-economic/-political) and science simply provides us with mostly socially-constructed stories that may or may not represent accurately the phenomena it is hoping to understand. One needs ‘faith’ to accept conclusions at complete face value given all the impediments to the ‘ideal’ we hold science against. And then there’s the whole interpretation via established paradigms (refer to Thomas Kuhn’s work on scientific revolutions) that can overturn decades of conclusions by shifting the interpretation of phenomena…

JD
SG, great point. Same is true with religion. Religion isn’t flawed it’s just the leaders and the people who practice it

Steve Bull
JD, I am reminded of the line by Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park: “…your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Perhaps, for example, performing gain-of-function research on viruses was/is not an area that should be ‘explored’—I mean, what could go wrong?

SG
Steve Bull So should we stop trying to figure it all out because we are flawed and biased? What are you saying here?

Steve Bull
SG, Basically, what I’m suggesting is that we need to not place science upon a pedestal from which it cannot be questioned/criticised, which is what I sense from a lot of commenters in this group. The scientific method and the interpretation of conclusions from it is always impacted by the humans who practice it; it is impossible to separate the social influences humans are susceptible to from it. Humans can never be completely objective, so the narratives we weave are oftentimes if not always influenced by our social circumstances and conditioning. Ecologist Dr. Bill Rees and coauthor Megan Siebert perhaps place things in perspective via this statement at the beginning of a recent paper on our energy ‘transition’: “We begin with a reminder that humans are storytellers by nature. We socially construct complex sets of facts, beliefs, and values that guide how we operate in the world. Indeed, humans act out of their socially constructed narratives as if they were real. All political ideologies, religious doctrines, economic paradigms, cultural narratives—even scientific theories—are socially constructed “stories” that may or may not accurately reflect any aspect of reality they purport to represent. Once a particular construct has taken hold, its adherents are likely to treat it more seriously than opposing evidence from an alternate conceptual framework.”(https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/15/4508) As for ‘figuring it all out’, have we not learned enough to understand that we will never achieve such lofty ideals. That instead of focusing on those learnings that indicate we have proceeded significantly into ecological overshoot and need to begin preparing for the inevitable consequences of this, we are attempting to sustain, even expand upon, the unsustainable (which is what a lot of science is being used for). We need to recognise and acknowledge our limits and reorient our existence towards living within Nature’s hard, physical boundaries–not try and keep the growth party going and putting us even further into overshoot because ‘science will figure it out’.

SG
Steve Bull I realize we will never “figure it all out” and there will always be new discoveries and new interpretations. A true scientist does not stop questioning. The whole point of science is to question. If some people choose to close their minds to the possibility of new information that may change what we think we know, they are missing g the point of “ science” Again it’s more of a human failing not a science failing.

Steve Bull
SG, While the properly carried out ‘scientific method’ is likely our best process for determining universal ‘truths’ it is, unfortunately, carried out by humans and we can never be eliminated/isolated from the equation. This is especially true for complex systems (those with nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena) where all variables are impossible to control for and interpretations of results are carried out.

JD
Steve Bull, the moral high ground scientist operate off of because they believe they aren’t participating in religious activities is extraordinary. It’s absolutely 100% no different than what born again Christians experience as they operate. I have no judgment of either party, but only interested in pointing out the similarities, which makes finger pointing silly. 

JD
SG, maybe he’s just pointing out that scientists are no different than religious zealots. You might say well, religious zealots murder in the name of God. Well, scientist did a bunch of murdering in the last few years in the name of I’m not sure what. So it’s not that people should stop trying to figure it all out, it’s people should stop pointing to that process as justification for an implicit moral high ground. 

SG
JD, It is not the intent of science to murder people but it is sometimes the intent of religion

Steve Bull
SG, Consider how ‘science’ contributed to the eugenics movement or what virus gain-of-function research has accomplished. There are plenty of examples of scientific research into better ways to eliminate other humans.

SG
Steve Bull Again, human failings. Science has no conscience, it just tries to research answer to questions. If humans misuse it it is not the fault of “science”

Steve Bull
SG, We’re simply talking past each other and will have to agree to disagree. I stand committed to the perspective that you cannot remove the human aspect from the practice of science. It is a human endeavour, through and through. 

RS
Steve Bull Your point of view is quite narrow. Science never hurt a person, reality was the one who hurt. And that is humans wanting to use science as a weapon. Science is merely knowledge and what the human does with this knowledge is what needs to be addressed. We the human are not , at this time, capable of handling mind altering information

RY
Steve Bull You are probably alive because of vaccinations and anti-biotics, so no.

Steve Bull
RY, Perhaps, but there’s an argument to be made that humans are well into ecological overshoot because of our inability to allow ‘natural’ processes to keep our population numbers below the planet’s carrying capacity. So are our interventions in these processes helpful or harmful, in the long run? The consequences that a species in overshoot experiences are often if not always quite ‘harmful’.

RY
Steve Bull I agree, in fact that may be an answer to the Fermi Paradox. But science itself is neutral. It is neither good nor bad. Only how it is used can determine that. Science also gives us birth control, while religion often opposes it and urges people to procreate endlessly.

Projections are that Earth’s population is expected to peak and then decline. Lift people out of poverty and educate them and they inevitably have fewer children.

Steve Bull
RY, There are many economists and futurists that also encourage increased population growth (but that’s mostly to keep the Ponzis that are our monetary and economic systems from imploding, and based upon the view that infinite growth is entirely possible on a finite planet).

And the projections about a levelling off of population that you speak of depend almost entirely upon the global population achieving a standard of living comparable to the so-called advanced economies of the world. Such optimistic predictions (dare I say delusional) are fully and completely resource blind (especially as it relates to energy). There is almost certainly not going to be a ‘managed’ curtailing of the growth our species has been experiencing; it will be forced upon us by Nature and we are unlikely to enjoy the transition.

RY
Steve Bull Sadly, I suspect you are correct. We are not good at recognizing or addressing rolling threats.

Steve Bull
RY, It’s the complexity that we can’t understand. Nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena cannot be predicted no matter how sophisticated one’s model. It also doesn’t help that we tend to believe our species stands outside and apart from Nature. We continue to tell and believe in stories where we have significant agency and can control everything. That’s not the real world; that’s magical thinking.

NZ
Steve Bull no, that was the politics

Steve Bull
NZ, Humans, including scientists, are ‘political’ animals. Look into how academic/economic incentives influence research.

NZ
Steve Bull it could have been worse … they could have used them

DC
Steve Bull no that would be the Science that allows you to gripe about science while doing so on a device that lets you fit the sum of all human knowledge in the palm of your hand and communicate instantly with nearly everyone worldwide.

Anyway you look at it or slice it Science has been a net-plus for humanity.

Steve Bull
And a contrarian perspective could be that all this technology that many crow on about as being so ‘beneficial’ has also—because of the industrial processes required in their production and the geopolitical dynamics involved in acquiring resources—has not only placed humanity in ecological overshoot (with a problematic ‘collapse’ to come) but helped to destroy the ecological systems all life depends upon. The experiment that Homo sapiens is (especially its last 10-15000 years with the rise of complex societies) has not yet concluded and there’s good evidence that the hyper-exploitation of finite resources over the past couple of centuries (thanks a lot to technological developments) will not end well.

DC
Steve Bull, I feel you are looking at it through not just a contrarian lense but a myopic one as well.

The problem isn’t Science.

It’s people.

Even now….with all the evidence that Science has given us revealing how we are harming the planet and our long term prospects on it in we refuse to come together and take the necessary steps to mitigate the damage.

That isn’t Science’s fault.

Without Science life for humans would have remained short and brutal with women frequently dying in childbirth, children frequently dying young from common pathogens, and a general average life expectancy of 30.

Steve Bull
DC, Yes, it’s helped to expedite our journey into overshoot.

DC
Steve Bull, well…..yes.

But, again…..Science has explained to us how to “undershoot.”

We won’t listen.

It would be interesting to see how humanity would be doing now if Science was never used.

I suspect we would be generally miserable.

Or could already be extinct.

Too bad advanced Science wasn’t around 66 million years ago and used to deflect the asteroid that wiped out most life on the planet at the time.

Or maybe it’s a good thing because if the dinosaurs had the tech to do that we wouldn’t be here lol.

Steve Bull
DC, The evidence suggests strongly that we are too far past the tipping point for overshoot to be ‘corrected’; with or without ‘science’. The best we might do is mitigate at the margins, but instead (mostly because of denial combined with who sits atop our complex societies’ power and wealth structures) we are continuing to pursue policies and actions that are taking us further into overshoot—especially the belief that there’s a technological ‘fix’.

That human populations were ‘miserable’ prior to the widespread use of ‘science’ assumes a lot about the life and times of the prehistoric hunter-gathering groups that existed for 100,000+ years prior to ‘modern’ times (say the past 12,000 since large, complex societies arose)as well as assumptions about how most of the current 8+ billion live (only a minority live in the ‘splendour’ of so-called ‘advanced’ economies that exploit and use the majority of finite resources to support their ‘advantaged’ living standards).

DC
Steve Bull whether we are past a tipping point is, again, the fault of humans and not Science.

All available archeological evidence indicates that prehistoric humans lived short and largely miserable lives spending most of their time just trying to stay alive as do most of the current world’s population that doesn’t have advanced technologies readily available to them.

The Science of Agriculture and irrigation alone has saved countless lives from starvation.

Even if some paradise or garden of eden ever existed or exists today I see little point or advantage in a humanity that never advances beyond a primitive nature.

DC
Steve Bull ironically, if not for Science I doubt either one of us would have the luxury of the time it has taken to engage in this debate.

Steve Bull
DC, I’d argue it’s more about net energy surpluses than science. Net energy surpluses (especially thanks to hydrocarbons) have afforded humans the luxury to engage in all sorts of non-survival practices. And as these surpluses have encountered ever-quickening diminishing returns, such ‘luxuries’ are increasingly looking to be in the rear-view mirror in the not-too-distant future.

RR
Steve Bull More people have been killed “in the name of God” than by nuclear warheads

Steve Bull
RR, I don’t disagree. There’s also been a lot killed in the name of politics and supposed democracy/freedom.

RM
Steve Bull back to the caves

Steve Bull
RM, While it is impossible to predict the future with much accuracy, it seems certain that a societal transition to a much simpler existence is ahead for those that make it through the bottleneck we have led ourselves into.

CB
Steve Bull Science is observing the facts of electricity. Social & economic forces create light bulbs or electric chairs, or rail guns. Scientists discover politicians, military people, & capitalists manipulate those findings to fit THEIR desires.

LM
Steve Bull One of the things “sciences” doesn’t do is tell us how to use the knowledge science uncovers. Usually taught at the middle school level. Miss something?

Steve Bull
LM CB, That’s a convenient logical runaround for abdicating responsibility for the misuse of knowledge. As I stated above, the line from Jurassic Park by Jeff Goldblum is apropos here: “…your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

MO
Steve Bull You’re confusing scientists with the politicians and military or corporate entities that put advancements to a nefarious use. That is like blaming architects for the building of the gas chambers.

Steve Bull
MO, You’re missing (or perhaps ignoring) everything I have stated about the social influences that impact the scientific process and thus the work of supposed ‘objective’ and ‘non-partisan’ scientists. In an ‘ideal’ world where such impacts don’t exist or can be completely controlled for, the scientific method appears to be our best means of understanding our universe. We don’t live in such a world, however.


Similar ‘simplistic’ memes have appeared on this FB Group repeatedly. The other one that makes me shake my head (for a variety of reasons) is this one:


A handful of relevant articles:

https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/introduction/scientific-inquiry/why-must-scientists-be-skeptics.php
The Skeptical Scientist

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-skepticism-reveals/
What Skepticism Reveals about Science

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123984982000023
Elements of Scientific Thinking: Skepticism, Careful Reasoning, and Exhaustive Evaluation Are All Vital

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2011.0177
Science as organized scepticism

https://skepticalscience.com/the-skepticism-in-skeptical-science.html
The Skepticism in Skeptical Science


One of the more significant issues for me in calling into question the assertions that non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies are ‘green/clean/non-polluting’ (all great marketing propaganda via the manipulation of language use by the way) is the denial/ignorance/obfuscation/rationalising away of the ecological systems destruction these technologies (all complex, industrial technology actually) require. 

So I share this FB Group conversation initiated by one of this technology’s cheerleaders:

Steve Bull
Except: “…and I have already heard that auto parts suppliers are stopping orders for EV production and that combustion engine plants are being spruced up for a few more years.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/…/chinese-battery-makers-bac

AD
What are the environmental costs? (Real not provocative question)

UB
AD, Batteries are a non-polluting technology. One of the nicest ever. No emissions, no liquids, no gas. When they’ve degraded a bit, you recycle them and make them new. What more can you ask for?

Steve Bull
UB, The production and recycling of batteries is anything but non-polluting. To argue otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.

GT
Steve Bull, please link facts no bla bla bla

UB
Currently, lead batteries are recycled at 95%. One of the best recycling rates of the whole industrial system. There is no reason why we can’t recycle lithium batteries at the same rate. And even better.

Steve Bull
GT, Do a simple internet search. There’s a ton of information on the detrimental environmental impacts of battery production and recycling. Here’s one article to get you started: https://www.wired.com/…/lithium-batteries-environment…/

Steve Bull
UB, Yes, recycling happens but to suggest it has zero negative environmental impacts is not supported by the realities of its practice.

GT
Steve Bull, “Do a simple internet search”

NO NO NO YOU STATE > YOU EXPOSE STUDIES DATA AND RESEARCH !!!!

YOU DO THAT IN THE PUBLIC COURT OF FACEBOOK

MR
UB, until now the capacity for proper recycling is low, and without extremely expensive recycling in plants with appropriate technologies it becomes one of the most polluting waste ever. In addition, they continue to have big problems in the event of an accident, because the chemical combustion they develop is not possible by ordinary firefighters, which is unaware of chemical reagents that were so far only expected in the presence of large chemical plants. Finally and first problem for the buyer, in a short time they degrade and the charge, already low in terms of guaranteed mileage compared to communal fuels, becomes really demanding, best suited to urban journeys. Problems that, at least for a while, and until a technological leap in battery components, will remain difficult to solve.

Steve Bull
GT, I’ve played this dance with others. If you believe that battery production and recycling is inert for the environment as UB claims, no amount of evidence (peer-reviewed research included) is likely to dissuade you. I have challenged an assertion that has plenty of research to show it is false. Just the fact that hydrocarbon-reliant mining is the major process required for their production should be enough to show that batteries are not environmentally neutral. I get, however, that denial is a powerful drug.

AD
UB, I do environmental assessments (even if it is infrastructure projects and territorial plans), so I put myself the problem of the LCCA compared to a car with a thermal engine. In addition to the costs of infrastructure construction and the issue of sustainability of the demand for electricity. I think, in my childhood, that the intermediate solution of hybrids is the way to pursue in the middle period.

I would be interested to have scientific sources, if possible. Thank you

DB
MR, the batteries of current electric cars are guaranteed for over 1000 charge cycles, they run 300 thousand kilometers. Usually at 200 thousand km poor a car like a Clio 1.2 petrol could be scrapped with a dozen years of use and that’s fine, why should there be problems with higher performance in the case of an electric car? Are they going to be blatantly ideological problems?

MR
DBD, The reality so far, especially for the low and medium-range models, is that after 300, 400 charging cycles, and especially when you have to do icycles in half, with your car outside of work, between the morning and the afternoon and so on, the road is guaranteed to diminish dramatically. If you have a dislevel to do, even just because you work in the city and you bought the house on a hill, if not you would limit yourself to a hole where it is impossible to have children – and half of Italy is mountainous, I remind you – the battery’s property degrades even faster. Sometimes you have to look at reality, not what is on the paper. As with fluorescent lamps, which in theory were supposed to be a revolution and instead degraded very quickly, in the face of what the manufacturers claimed, and disappeared without regret at the advent of LED. So far, we’re talking about urban commuting technology, which keeps cities crowded with 4-wheelers, and unable to replace cars for mid-distance extra-urban commuting and for those who have to travel/deliver for work (and there’s a lot of them). We’re not even within reach of a route Bologna-Milan, Milabno-Venice, Bologna-Florence and back.

DBD
MR, yes but the ones you are campaigning are excuses, they are not reality, they are the reality you want to build with purely made up data. Very free to do it but a little less to think that stuff like this can be accepted as an argument, that’s all.

DBD
MR, ah there, stuff to hear, I get it. Interesting. Keep changing nothing from what was written before but you are free to keep saying it, for charity.


A few articles of relevance: 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/09/worlds-largest-floating-solar-farm-wrecked-by-a-storm/
The World’s Largest Floating Solar Farm Wrecked by a Storm Just Before Launch

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/13/ev-euphoria-is-dead-automakers-trumpet-consumer-choice-in-us.html
EV euphoria is dead. Automakers are scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans

https://wirepoints.org/pritzker-doubles-down-with-827-million-of-taxpayer-money-for-expansion-by-troubled-electric-vehicle-maker-rivian-wirepoints/
Pritzker doubles down with $827 million of taxpayer money for expansion by troubled electric vehicle maker, Rivian – Wirepoints

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Cold-Hard-Truth-About-Renewable-Energy-Adoption.html 
The Cold Hard Truth About Renewable Energy Adoption

https://www.ecoticias.com/en/energy-largets-project-fails/909/  The largest renewable energy project in history fails: only desert is left and we have lost $2 billion

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/biggest-corporate-welfare-scam-of-all-time-5625203?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge
Biggest Corporate Welfare Scam of All Time

https://mishtalk.com/economics/ford-loses-132000-on-each-ev-produced-good-news-ev-sales-down-20-percent/
Ford Loses $132,000 on Each EV Produced, Good News, EV Sales Down 20 Percent

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/fords-120000-loss-per-vehicle-shows-california-ev-goals-are-impossible-5641432?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge
Ford’s $120,000 Loss Per Vehicle Shows California EV Goals Are Impossible

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/your-tax-dollars-work-75-billion-has-produced-just-7-charging-stations-across-four-states
Your Tax Dollars At Work: In Two Years, $7.5 Billion Has Produced Just 7 EV Charging Stations


If you’ve made it to the end of this Contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton’s Overshoot and Tainter’s Collapse: see here.


It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1

A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.

With a Foreword and Afterword by Michael Dowd, authors include: Max Wilbert; Tim Watkins; Mike Stasse; Dr. Bill Rees; Dr. Tim Morgan; Rob Mielcarski; Dr. Simon Michaux; Erik Michaels; Just Collapse’s Tristan Sykes & Dr. Kate Booth; Kevin Hester; Alice Friedemann; David Casey; and, Steve Bull.

The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine–and most certainly than what mainstream media/politics would have us believe.

Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.

The Destiny of Civilization

The Destiny of Civilization

From the cave to the stars…?

Photo by Greg Rakozy on Unsplash

We live in dangerous times. Everything seems to be out of normal: stagnating economies, inflation, wars and an unfolding ecological and climate disaster. This is clearly not how things ought to be… While many just wave a hand and say, we will get over it, an increasing number of people feel — almost instinctively — that there is something terribly amiss with the stories we tell ourselves about where we are headed as a society. By now we should be already on track to “decarbonize” the economy and green technologies should’ve brought about a new bout of prosperity… What we have instead is rising emissions, a fracturing world order, and a rapid decline of living standards, especially in the most prosperous parts of the globe… What’s wrong with you, world…? Isn’t there a better story out there to help us through this perilous period?


I ended my previous essay about the decline of science and progress on a rather philosophical note — calling for a new eschatology enabling us to move past this civilization and to let go what cannot be hold onto. Eschatology, a word of Greek origin, is a set of beliefs concerning the end — be it the end of a human life, or the end of times itself. While the expression is used to discuss religious matters, this time I will focus on a much wider set of beliefs, concerning not only a certain faith, but civilization itself. Although this might sound a little abstract, what we — and most importantly our politicians — believe what our ultimate destiny is as a society, however, has an outsized impact on our future…

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Trust The “Science”…That Just Retracted 11,000 “Peer Reviewed” Papers

Trust The “Science”…That Just Retracted 11,000 “Peer Reviewed” Papers

It’s yet another reminder of why blindly ‘trusting the science’ may not always be the best go-to move in the future.

217 year old Wiley science publisher has reportedly “peer reviewed” more than 11,000 papers that were determined to be fake without ever noticing. The papers were referred to as “naked gobbledygook sandwiches”,  Australian blogger Jo Nova wrote on her blog last week.

“It’s not just a scam, it’s an industry,” she said. “Who knew, academic journals were a $30 billion dollar industry?”

According to Nova‘s post, professional cheating services are employing AI to craft seemingly “original” academic papers by shuffling around words. For instance, terms like “breast cancer” morphed into “bosom peril,” and a “naïve Bayes” classifier turns into “gullible Bayes.”

Similarly, in one paper, an ant colony was bizarrely rebranded as an “underground creepy crawly state.”

The misuse of terminology extends to machine learning, where a ‘random forest’ is whimsically translated to ‘irregular backwoods’ or ‘arbitrary timberland’.

Nova writes that shockingly, these papers undergo peer review without any rigorous human oversight, allowing egregious errors, like converting ‘local average energy’ to ‘territorial normal vitality’, to slip through.

The publisher Wiley has confessed that fraudulent activities have rendered 19 of its journals so compromised that they must be shuttered. In response, the industry is developing AI tools to detect these fakes, a necessary yet disheartening development. Nova writes:

The rot at Wiley started decades ago, but it got caught when it spent US $298 million on an Egyptian publishing house called Hindawi. We could say we hope no babies were hurt by fake papers but we know bad science already kills people. What we need are not “peer reviewed” papers but actual live face to face debate. Only when the best of both sides have to answer questions, with the data will we get real science:

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Gresham’s Law Comes for Science

Gresham’s Law Comes for Science

Yves here. KLG below describes how science publications have become much less reliable over time, with the proliferation of “open access” journals part of the problem. As he said via e-mail:

As science has hypertrophied, the bad is supplanted the good as spurious quantification of scientific research has come to rule the practice of science. This has in many ways ruined the practice, the art, and the craft of scientific research. Yes, I am one of those.

This has been facilitated by the rise of open-access, mostly virtual publishing, which was not originally considered a threat. On the contrary, open-access online publishing was expected to be a positive good. And it often is. But it often is not. Predatory publishers were not long in appearing as online publishing became accepted. Neo-predatory, if not outright predatory, “journals” are now the repositories of an ever growing mountain, and a form of Gresham’s Law – the bad drives out the good – has taken over much of the scientific literature, which has become “pay-to-play.”

And the finish is something my colleagues and I have only recently determined. Pay-to-publish has extended its tentacles into medical education, probably with equally deleterious effects.

IM Doc has regularly inveighed against a narrower but more dangerous corrupting influence: the way Big Pharma games drug-related studies and touts (typically) small scale studies that promote off-label uses.

By KLG, who has held research and academic positions in three US medical schools since 1995 and is currently Professor of Biochemistry and Associate Dean. He has performed and directed research on protein structure, function, and evolution; cell adhesion and motility; the mechanism of viral fusion proteins; and assembly of the vertebrate heart…

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

 

Science Snippets: Expect Extreme Weather Events

Science Snippets: Expect Extreme Weather Events

Draft script:

From Scientific American on 27 March 2024 comes this headline: Global Warming Is Slowing the Earth’s Rotation. Here’s the subtitle: “Drastic polar ice melt is slowing Earth’s rotation, counteracting a speedup from the planet’s liquid outer core. The upshot is that we might need to subtract a leap second for the first time ever within the decade.”

Oh, really? That’s the upshot? Not that anthropogenic global warming underlies the ongoing Mass Extinction Event. Not that anthropogenic global warming is destroying habitat for all life on Earth. Onto the important topic: “we might need to subtract a leap second for the time ever within the decade.”

A Harvard University geophysicist provides the bottom line of this article: “Do we continue … adding or subtracting seconds from our definition of a day, or do we accept this irregular difference as normal and give up the bother of continuously correcting?”

Onward, then, to issues of minimal importance relative to the article in Scientific American, at least according to the Scientific American author. I’ll start with an article at earth.com. Titled Strongest ocean current on Earth is speeding up and causing problems, this article was published on 31 March 2024.

Here’s the lede: “The Antarctic Circumpolar Current … is the most powerful current on Earth, encircling Antarctica and influencing the global climate.” The relevant question asked by the article comes from the two ensuing paragraphs: “Over the last few decades, observations show that it has been speeding up. Experts were uncertain whether this was a result of human-caused warming or a natural pattern.

However, scientists have discovered that this oceanic powerhouse is getting even stronger. What does this mean for our planet’s future?”

The article at earth.com refers to a peer-reviewed, open-access paper published in Frontiers in Marine Science published on 22 February 2024. It is titled Revisiting the multidecadal variability of North Atlantic Ocean circulation and climate.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Anti-Science? Scientific Reporting RE: Covid-19 mRNA vaccines

Anti-Science? Scientific Reporting RE: Covid-19 mRNA vaccines

“Anti-Science” Accusations are Anti-Scientific

“By trying to reduce “science” – which, by definition, explores doubts, complexity, and is in constant evolution – to simple messages set in stone, scientists can become the worse enemies of science.”

Paul, Brown et al, “Who is anti-science”?

We now know that a wide range of psychological manipulation methods (PsyWar and Cognitive Warfare) were deployed by western governments since early 2020 to support false narrative scaffolds that SARS-CoV-2 is a highly lethal virus, that the deployed COVID genetic vaccines were safe, effective, and necessary to prevent widespread excessive death (ergo the incorrectly modeled 3.4% case fatality rate), and innumerable other lies. Multiple examples exist which demonstrate that governmentally deployed “nudge” technology, intentional “fear” messaging targeting both children and adults, and literally thousands of funded academic studies probing methods for overcoming “vaccine hesitancy” have been deployed against the general populace.

These methods and techniques were further amplified by established legacy/corporate media and their employees, who functioned as propagandists rather than serving as independent investigators and arbiters of truthful information. Furthermore, a wide range of weaponized terms were developed and deployed as intentional smears by government, non-governmental organizations and corporate media in an attempt to censor and delegitimize scientists, physicians, and others who dared to question these promoted false narratives.

As a component of this propaganda campaign, a new lexicon was also developed and weaponized, including terms such as “anti-vaxxer”- which was quite literally redefined in Webster’s dictionary to include any who did not support vaccine mandates, as well as the notorious trio of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation…

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Scientists Try Risky Air and Water Experiments Hoping to Stop Climate Change

Scientists desperate to stop or reverse climate change are dumping chemicals in the ocean and spraying saltwater in the air. What can go wrong? I discuss the short and long term.

The Wall Street Journal reports Scientists Resort to Once-Unthinkable Solutions to Cool the Planet

Dumping chemicals in the ocean? Spraying saltwater into clouds? Injecting reflective particles into the sky? Scientists are resorting to once unthinkable techniques to cool the planet because global efforts to check greenhouse gas emissions are failing.

These geoengineering approaches were once considered taboo by scientists and regulators who feared that tinkering with the environment could have unintended consequences, but now researchers are receiving taxpayer funds and private investments to get out of the lab and test these methods outdoors.

Tweaking the Climate

Experiments Underway

  • Marine Cloud Brightening: Researchers aboard a ship off the northeastern coast of Australia near the Whitsunday Islands are spraying a briny mixture through high-pressure nozzles into the air in an attempt to brighten low-altitude clouds that form over the ocean. Scientists hope bigger, brighter clouds will reflect sunlight away from the Earth, shade the ocean surface and cool the waters around the Great Barrier Reef, where warming ocean temperatures have contributed to massive coral die-offs. The research project, known as marine cloud brightening, is led by Southern Cross University as part of the $64.55 million, or 100 million Australian dollars, Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program.
  • Stardust Solutions: In Israel, a startup called Stardust Solutions has begun testing a system to disperse a cloud of tiny reflective particles about 60,000 feet in altitude, reflecting sunlight away from Earth to cool the atmosphere in a concept known as solar radiation management, or SRM.

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Putting Science in its Place

Putting Science in its Place

Photo by Noam R

Although I might be described as a dyed-in-the-wool scientist, I’m about to say some things that are critical of science, which may be upsetting to some. It’s like those warnings on a movie or show: strong language, nudity, smoking, badmouthing science. So, before I lay into it, let me express some appreciation for what science does remarkably well.

  1. Science exemplifies careful observation—isolating confounding factors to focus on a particular interaction.
  2. Science follows a method that suppresses personal attachment to an idea: nature becomes the arbiter of truth.
  3. When it comes to elementary particles and fundamental physics, one can hardly do any better; although even an atomic nucleus is complex enough to defy exact treatment.
  4. Science advances by trying to tear itself apart, so that surviving notions are very strong.
  5. Because of science, we have a decent outline of how cosmology, evolution, and biophysical systems work.

It has its place.

But the very thing that makes science powerful is also its biggest weakness. It relentlessly pushes wrinkles aside, smoothing its zone of interest to the least complex system one can obtain for study. This is ideal when wanting to observe a Bose-Einstein condensate in isolation, or the genetic mechanism for producing a certain protein. Science also tends to dissect a problem (or literal critter) into the smallest, disembodied pieces—which then have trouble relating back to the whole integration of relationships between pieces. Other “ways of knowing” attempt to grapple with the whole, accepting it as it is and not applying reductionist tools.

Limits of Science

In promoting the cut and dried, dissected, abstracted, tidy realm of science, we can lose the ability to celebrate the wonder, mystery, and awe of complexity and relationship that defy simple frameworks. The artificial, rectilinear, ordered, Cartesian world we construct around ourselves alienates us from more durable but messy realities…

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh VII–Science: It May Not Be All You Think It Is

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh VII

Oct 12, 2020
Pompeii, Italy (1993) Photo by author

Science: It May Not Be All You Think It Is

Ha! It’s poetry in motion
Now she’s making love to me
The spheres are in commotion
The elements in harmony
She blinded me with science
(She blinded me with science!)
And hit me with technology
-Thomas Dolby, 1982 (She Blinded Me With Science)

Science, it turns outs, is a process not an answer. And, it usually has many answers from various sciences, each having their own methods and standards. When someone tells you, “the science says,” be skeptical. They are usually being paid to say what they are about to say or at least have been thoroughly indoctrinated by others who are paid. There is never just one answer to any supposedly scientific question.
-Kurt Cobb (Why am I feeling so anxious? The end of modernism arrives)

Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof…all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.
-Satoshi Kanazawa (Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”)

In short, we can never be 100% that our perception of reality is accurate, and scientific experiments are virtually impossible to totally and completely control. Further, science often uses inductive logic, and it relies on probabilities to draw conclusions. All of this prevents science from ever proving anything with absolute certainty. That does not, however, mean that science is untrustworthy, or that you can reject it whenever you like. Science tells us what is most likely true given the current evidence, but it is a skeptical process that always acknowledges the possibility of being wrong.
-Fallacy Man (Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing)

The answers you get depend on the questions you ask…What man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conception experience has taught him to see…Observation and experience can and must drastically restrict the range of admissible scientific belief, else there would be no science. But they cannot alone determine a particular body of such belief. An apparently arbitrary element, compounded of personal and historical accident, is always a formative ingredient of the beliefs espoused by a given scientific community at a given time…Because scientists are reasonable men, one or another argument will ultimately persuade many of them. But there is no single argument that can or should persuade them all. Rather than a single group conversion, what occurs is an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances…The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs.
-Thomas S. Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)

Science! That is the refrain from some to argue for what IS and what IS NOT ‘true’ or ‘factual’ in this world of social media edicts and memes (and associated self-created echo chambers), especially regarding fake news, climate change/global warming, pandemics, politics, and life in general.

The idea that science provides us with ‘objective proof’ about issues is a common error I’ve encountered time and time again. It is held for many reasons, primary among them may be the ‘politicisation’ of the notion; that is, the use of ‘science’ by politicians and others to reinforce what are for all intents and purposes desired goals/policies/actions/narratives/etc., and their insistence about science providing definitive support. We are certainly seeing this more and more with competing narratives regarding Covid-19 and what should and should not be done to address certain concerns.

My enlightenment, as it were, regarding scientific ‘proof’ and associated beliefs came in two parts during my university education. First was a poignant discussion with a professor providing feedback on a paper I had written and used the idea of science proving something to support my conclusion. He stated rather bluntly that “‘proof’ is only relevant in mathematics and jurisprudence, not science.” He then went on to explain the concept in greater detail, but it was that short statement that has stuck with me and altered my view of ‘objective science’ as ‘proof’ of various beliefs.

The second tipping point for me was during a presentation on human intelligence by the psychology department of the university (I had become interested in the subject as I explored human evolution via physical anthropology classes and sat in on a presentation by a guest speaker). As I recall, the visiting professor asked somewhat rhetorically what was the definition of intelligence we could use to explore the concept. After entertaining a few responses (all of which were different) he stressed that if we were to ask 100 psychologists such a question, we would get back 100 different answers: there was no agreed upon definition. One’s particular perspective ‘coloured’ what was important and observed.

There were also a handful of texts I read that impacted my beliefs. Some of the most pertinent ones were: The Structure of Scientific RevolutionsThe Mismeasure of ManEver Since DarwinThe Interpretation of Cultures.

The two experiences described above and the books I read impacted my interests at the time and I set off exploring other ideas and perspectives, getting into deconstructivismphilologyhermeneuticsdialecticsepistemologyobjectivity versus subjectivity, and skepticism. More recently I’ve explored the somewhat related subjects of complexity and cognition.

All of these ‘colour’ my belief system and my arguments regarding ‘collapse’. Do I know for certain some of the things I pontificate about. Absolutely not. And I hope I couch my rhetoric in words such as ‘likely’, ‘evidence’, ‘probably’, etc. to demonstrate my uncertainty. Because when we get right down to it, not one of us can be certain about the future and our beliefs about it. As several people have been credited with stating: It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. We live within complex systems made up of complex systems that, because of the nonlinear feedback loops that exist and emergent phenomena that arise from them, can neither be predicted nor controlled. Of this, I am fairly certain.

Do I believe ‘collapse’ of our current globalised, industrial world will occur? Yes. The evidence, to me, seems overwhelming; particularly all the experiments involving complex societies that have been carried out before us and ended with decline/collapse (see Tainter’s The Collapse of Complex Societies and Diamond’s Collapse) and the ‘fact’ that we live on a world with finite resources but are pursuing perpetual growth (see Meadows et al’s The Limits to Growth and Catton’s Overshoot).

Will, as some argue, our technology and human ingenuity save us in this current trial in complex societies? I’m doubtful; in fact, I’m fairly certain these things will simply expedite the fall as we rush into them to try and solve the problems we have created, bumping up against the real biophysical limits imposed by a finite world in the process and creating even more problems and dilemmas.

Of course, because I cannot predict the future with certainty, only time will tell…

Doug Casey on How Economic Witch Doctors Convince Everyone They’re Neurosurgeons

Doug Casey on How Economic Witch Doctors Convince Everyone They’re Neurosurgeons

Economic Witch Doctors

International Man: The average person doesn’t care about economics. But to the extent that he does, he only reads mainstream publications like The Economist and editorials in The New York Times.

In these publications, the average person will find so-called economists advocating upside-down and destructive concepts like negative interest rates, banning cash, debt-fueled consumption, government spending, and rampant money printing as the cures to economic ailments.

And if those methods don’t work—or inflict damage—the establishment economists’ response is to simply call for more money printing, more debt, and even lower interest rates.

What’s your take on conventional economic thinking and methods?

Doug Casey: Frankly, most “economists” today are only political apologists masquerading as economists.

An economist is somebody that describes the way the world works—how people go about producing, consuming, buying, selling, and living their lives. That’s not, however, what most of today’s PhD economists do. Instead, they prescribe the way they would like the world to work and tailor theories to help politicians demonstrate the virtue and necessity of their quest for more power.

As a result, legitimate economics barely exists today. What passes for economics has a very bad reputation, and it’s well deserved. Economics has become degraded. It’s not quite a laughingstock like gender studies, but it’s on a level with political science—which isn’t a science at all.

Every individual has vastly differing likes and dislikes and wants and needs. But these so-called economists like to treat people as if they were standardized atoms. They think they can manipulate people as if they were chemicals and treat the economy as something they can heat up or cool down. And they’re the ones who decide what the masses need.

Economics has become an excuse for central planning, and economists have become social engineers.

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Cancellations Start for John Clauser After Nobel Physics Laureate Speaks Out About “Corruption” of Climate Science

Cancellations Start for John Clauser After Nobel Physics Laureate Speaks Out About “Corruption” of Climate Science

Dr. Clauser was due to speak to the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office this Thursday under the title: “Let’s talk – How much can we trust IPCC climate predictions?” It would appear that “not a lot” isn’t the politically correct answer. Clauser is a longstanding critic of climate models and criticised the award of the Physics Nobel in 2021 for work on them. He is not alone, since many feel that climate models are primarily based on mathematics, and a history of failed opinionated climate predictions leave them undeserving of recognition at the highest level of pure science. Not that this opinion is shared by the green activist National Geographic magazine, which ran an article: “How climate models got so accurate they won a Nobel.”

Last week, Clauser observed that misguided climate science has “metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”. This pseudoscience, he continued, has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other related ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies and environmentalists. “In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis,” he added.

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress