Simon Says 'The Science is Clear' is BS
IMG source - Wallpapercave.com
I have long followed Simon Black of Sovereign Man. His straightforward statements of fact contrast markedly with so much of the drivel we are spoon fed today, and he often provides incredibly relevant vignettes of historical events that provide brilliant examples of why drivel is dangerous and reason based on facts existentially necessary.
Today's essay is typical in both regards. Remarkably, while discussing COP28 and the hordes of billionaires flying to a climate conference in private jets to discuss ending fossil fuel use in order to end warming of our climate after it became globally known that many of the jets were delayed in those flights by being unseasonably frozen to the runway, he doesn't even mention that humiliating proof of AGW deception. What he does mention is how Galileo was ordered by the Inquisition to no longer discuss or teach his theory that Earth and the other planets orbited the Sun, and that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
Why did the church order Galileo to not say or teach what he knew was the fact? Because the church's power depended on the lie that the Earth was the center of the universe, so they claimed the science was clear: what he was saying was heresy, and if he kept saying it, they would burn him alive. The parallels with COP28 and AGW are stunning, and after the massive propaganda campaign promoting first terror over a practically harmless disease, and then promoting injections with novel medical devices that were claimed to eliminate risk of catching that disease that were 'safe and effective', that has now been proved to be bullshit, we don't need to go back to the Inquisition to find examples of the politically powerful bullshitting us while claiming 'the science is clear'.
I'll refer you to Simon's discussion of that clarity of science being complete bullshit regarding fossil fuels, and the 'Green Revolution' intended to replace it. His essay is short and to the point: the claim 'the science is clear' isn't true, the Green Revolution is impossible, and he states facts that demonstrate those conclusions. I recently posted Pretense of Science Leading us Astray to resounding indifference, so don't take my word for it. Simon Black is a far better writer with a knack for providing examples from history and evidence that is far more compelling.
Lives are in the balance. Civilization is at a breakpoint. Humanity is poised on the precipice of war. Please read “The science is clear,” and other fanatical assertions. Don't leave my failure to provide convincing statements of this thesis the only essay between you and falling for bullshit that may do you irreparable harm. Simon says it much better than I can.
science says: safe
science says: effective
science says: get your booster
But what about excess deaths in the US?
science didn't say.
In fact, what you are pointing out is that the science never said safe or effective, and what the science actually says is the opposite: unsafe and ineffective. What is said by science is the data provided by objective inquiry. Safe and effective were bullshit, not science.
As humanity eventually resolved the question regarding the orbits of the planets and today holds Galileo in high regard because of his effort to communicate the data that science actually said, and doesn't remember the names of the inquisitors that censored Galileo, we will eventually resolve these present questions the same way. The delay in resolution will be measured in lost lives.
The sooner we call bullshit on the bullshitters, the fewer of us will die from that bullshit.
Thanks!
Its all the laws of opposites in mirror world lol - fact is, the very pictures and video of them flying in gigantic jets - really is classic clown world - any normal person, if they were not asleep, would realise that - but instead they parrot their talking points -
Thanks!
The idea of "games" for social modifications became popular in the 60's and 70's. Simon says is a perfect example.
We've been taught since youth to appeal to authority for what is. That's why news channels have "traffic authority" or "weather authority" and of course "health authorities". But have these "authorities" earned the right to determine what is by their skill, or talent, or proven results? Not really. They determine what is by their authority, given to them by higher authorities (the ones with armies) and anyone who questions them is questioning their authority.
But this is too obvious. People can always be questioned. Society needs some sort of unquestionable authority. Enter Science (so called). Instead of "Simon Says" it's "Science says". And if you do ask unauthorized questions, they will say "You can't question the science, you science denier."
That absolutely is exactly the situation. Well said.
Thanks!
Indeed. My opinion is that "AI", which is only as "intelligent" as those who feed it information, is being pushed on us solely to become a "Wizard of Oz" like final arbiter of what is true or not, now that the former vehicle, the media, has been so discredited that only complete morons believe even a single word from it.
Coding for "AI" is pretty easy, even for someone who knows only the oldest of computer languages like assembler:
OUTSTR "whatever we want those idiots to believe, giving the aire of knowledge because ooh, the computer says so"
That's it. One line. With interchangeable character strings of course. :)