oldephartte (oldephartte) wrote,
oldephartte
oldephartte

The Pollution of Scientism

Prof Peter Ridd: the Great Barrier Reef recovers, our science institutions are failing us, science needs to be checked

RobertR

The real environmental pollution – it is not the Barrier Reef that it suffering, it is the pollution of the environment and landscape and decimation of birdlife by wind turbines.
And then we have all these other climate change related disasters!

- De-industrialization due to high power costs and interrupted power supply.
- Wasted expenditure on dud technology.
- Opportunities for monopolist power companies (and governments) to gouge profits on power supply.
- Businesses going broke because they cant pay their power bills. Employees losing jobs.
- Large proportion of the population unable to heat their homes due to inability to pay sky high power rates. Resultant sickness due to colds.
- Certain individuals and companies probably experiencing windfall profits from all of the above at the expense of the population.

The list goes on and on. Where are the consumer watch dogs who are meant to be protecting us against organized scams? All of the above, under the catch cry “climate change” is a hoax that will hit the history books in the years to come as one of the biggest scams of all time!

te change” is a hoax that will hit the history books in the years to come as one of the biggest scams of all time!

824

#
Lionell Griffith

It is not profit they receive, it is theft by deception on an unbelievably massive scale. To earn a profit, one must create a value that you are willing to trade with another creator of value for the value they have created. They must equally be willing to trade value for value. The trade is accomplished as a win for both parties in the trade.

The profit accrues to both parties in that they value what they received more than they gave in the trade. A measure of profit for each party is the the difference between the cost to create the value given and the cost to create the value received. When money is used as a medium of exchange, the monetary value of the profit is the difference between the monetary cost to produce the value given and the monetary value received by selling the value received in the trade.

Without true profit, there is no production. For example, you plant a 100 pounds of potatoes, later you harvest only 100 pounds of potatoes. There is no net gain in potatoes and you lost the cost of planting, harvesting, and a season of caring for the crop. This lost must be paid for by prior profits from actual production either saved or borrowed. In a very real sense, profit is simply the cost of having the capacity of producing in the future.

The word “profit” has been seriously contaminated by those who wish to take without producing values for exchange. Not the least of which is the labor theory of value in which the value of a good or service is equal to the brute labor it took to produce it. Forgotten in the theory is the value of the knowledge, skill, intellectual property, trade secrets, facilities, capital equipment, and management that focuses the labor and makes it both efficient and effective. This is presumed to be of no value yet it is the source of all values created. Without them, brute labor produces nothing.

This is part of our challenge to be precise and accurate in our use of language. This is necessary to avoid the many double bind equivocation traps set to justify taking your stuff without paying for it.

Reality is real, it is what it is, and your words must point to real things that actually exist. Otherwise you are part of the problem.

To live, man must produce the values necessary for living. To have a future, man must profit from his trading of value for value. This is the nature of man and is relationship to reality.

Lionell Griffith

When your true purpose is to destroy value.

See solar panels and wind turbine generators. For almost every use, they are produced, installed, and used at a loss. That loss is paid for out of the life’s production of every productive individual alive and to be born for many generations.

The ultimate goal of such things is not to save the earth. It is to destroy modern technological civilization and the population that both sustains it and is sustained by it. The remainder of the population will soon follow. The earth is to become another useless and unused speck of rock dust in the vastness of the universe.

Bottom line: what you do is determined by your purpose. Even if you don’t admit what that purpose actually is. Your actual purpose is measured by what you repeatedly accomplish. Your words on the matter are irrelevant to your accomplishments.

RobertR

Yes, good point. Wind turbines do not in any way accomplish the purpose that they are intended to accomplish. For this reason, and the following, they are inherently evil and would never exist if politics and public money were not involved in their concept.
On top of this, the pollution from these turbines is monumental. How to totally ruin, big time, a vast naturally beautiful environment – install a wind farm. Immense visual pollution, chemical pollution, fire risk pollution, sound and infra sound vibration pollution, chemical pollution and indiscriminate slaughter of wildlife that is not limited to birdlife but also includes any animal species that suffers heavy disruption due to the sound and vibration pollution in their native environment.

Lionell Griffith

Intended purpose? Suggest stated purpose. There is often a huge difference between the stated purpose and actual purpose as measured by what is actually accomplished.

A fundamental principle of systems is “The purpose of a system is what it does.” This law is a direct corollary of Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety: “The larger the variety of actions available to a control system, the larger the variety of perturbations it is able to compensate.” Meaning that a system can only do what it is designed and built to do. This has no necessary relationship to what it was said to be able to do.

The disconnect between stated purpose and actual purpose is especially evident in systems that are repeatedly replicated and put into play that produce different results or more significant side effects than suggested by its stated purpose. See for example: Wind Turbines, PVC panels, and the like.

( Or see invasions to 'free' the victim people...by those who then rape and pillage the population )

Bobl

No, peer review is a editorial review prior to publishing that looks for obvious errors, no peer reviewer is required to confirm results or replicate experiments. It’s a glorified spell and arithmetic check, sometimes peer reviewers might check method, but not often. Peer review is NOT part of the scientific process, it is part of the publishing process.

Manfred

Your actual purpose is measured by what you repeatedly accomplish. Your words on the matter are irrelevant to your accomplishments.

“Actions speak louder than words.”

The eco-Marxists, the policy-based scientivist, the Left-worshipping Fourth Estate are hungry for two age old things, money and power. Daily their actions betray their intentions. The UNFCCC definition of “climate change,” the UN definition of “civil society,” The Kyoto Protocol, The Paris Accord, Michael E. Mann and his “schtick,” the infamous “98%,” the MSM bias toward Brexit, the US Presidential Race, the current White House, the stream of bilious Fake News,

…..all a product of intentional, deliberate actions that betray motives and agendas. So we see power and influence driven by funding arising from power and influence…. unsustainable by any definition except totalitarianism, and even then unsustainable.

But what I don’t understand is the bigger picture “why,” why the suspension of critical thought, of healthy skepticism. The same people who peddle the eco-Marxist meme and its permutations organise their finances, their families, their relationships, and their work with far greater intellectual attention and “sustainability” than they apply to their “news” or their “politics”. And there is an overlay. An innate tension between a desire for individuality and the desire to belong to a group that may be expressed in a broad spectrum between outright independence and absolute collectivism. We see this to some extent in the voting pattern.

Perhaps it is the same “belief” phenomena observed in religions, where religious belief both justifies and enables a suspension of the rational? In the West, traditional Christian belief has been supplanted by belief in the consumer nightmare. Greed according to Gordon Gekko, is good. More is better.

Independents cannot exist on pure belief, but collectives can for a while. There are usually enough do-ers in collectives to carry or force the navel gazers, for awhile at least.

Then it all falls over as Lionell says, when Atlas shrugs.
RobertR

An innate tension between a desire for individuality and the desire to belong to a group

This battle between the individual and the group is the key to understanding the psychology behind the Climate Change scam.
In an ideal world, for an individual to have their ideas/findings adopted by society, those ideas must have first evolved into a position of effectiveness and successful operation. However if that individual is one of the elite who has inordinate power in the group and is able to just layer them onto the group due to inordinate influence, unevolved and untested ideas can be adopted and layered onto society by the power of the group
in a free society, society adopts those ideas that pass the empirical test of evolution, not because of who says they work for their intended purpose but because they do actually work.
On the other hand decisions made by the group are more often than not based on how powerful those in the group who made those decisions are and not on whether the knowledge has evolved through an evolutionary test of empirical survival.
Climate change policies never passed the evolutionary test, they only became adopted because the people who dreamed them up had enormous power in the influential group.

Lionell Griffith

But what I don’t understand is the bigger picture “why,” why the suspension of critical thought, of healthy skepticism.

This is my understanding of the “bigger picture”. Fundamentally, reality demands that for a human to live he must learn how to think critically and have a healthy skepticism for all extraordinary claims. He must accept that magic is inoperative in this universe. He must know that successful action must come from careful investigation, acquisition of reliable knowledge, rational thought, careful and deliberate choosing, and positive action consistent with those things. It is hard and demanding work necessitating a high character, absolute honesty, and a consistent integrity.

A spoiled child wants none of those things. He wants is wishes delivered immediately BECAUSE he wishes for them and without effort. Then, when it doesn’t happen, he blames the adults around him for not using their magic to make it so.

He screams, yells, and has a fit DEMANDING that it be made so. Secretly, he dreams of the day when he will be powerful enough to force those who denied him, to stand and deliver. All coming from the belief, conviction, and faith that brute force will make his wishes come true. He will teach THEM to deny him his wishes.

Now, in the real world, this does not work. A sense of resentment against the requirements of being a human builds to the point of white hot hate. Up to and and including wishing to destroy anything human – anything the product of the human mind. Only arbitrary whim is to be master of all – his whim! Yet, he feels that others have the secret he is denied. That somehow they know. So he joins in the collective striving to be indistinguishable from it. He goes along to get along.

Down deep, where it really counts is still that deep resentment of the requirements to be human. It is his unconscious purpose and justification for his actions that is frustrated at every turn. The result of this seething hatred is policies that fail, choices that are destructive, and justification of actions that are done with the “best of intentions” with total evasion of responsibility for the results or even his deeper purpose. In effect, if he can’t have it HIS way, his drive is that no one can have anything.

All because, as a child, he abandoned the path of reason and chose the path force and faith. This truly is the dark side from whence all evil comes. The bigger picture is not all that big. It is small, pathetic, and empty. It is nothing but a spoiled child who refused to grow up.

OriginalSteve

The key question in my head when we hear anything in the news that has the word “crisis” in it is this –

“How could this be used to kill off industry in this country?”

The marxists and occult NWO barrow boys hate our industrialized civilisation, as such, they will manufacture fake news to create a frenzy from the lap dog media and Socialist luvvies / hand wringers to pass laws to make investment in industry difficult or impossible, with the aim of crashing our country simialr to the communists in the unions who deliberately refused to load supply ships during WW2…..

TdeF

It is possibly the explosive growth in the ecology industry. Part science, part activist, part alarmist there is real money, fame and international and domestic travel in being an ecological alarmist. There is none of that in just noting the facts and looking for natural explanations. My interest is in the 300 full time PhD level researchers in the CSIRO who studied Climate Change/Global Warming in Australia and made up some lovely colour brochures. They are now looking to help Australians cope with the disaster? Except they didn’t find one.

Ethically, how do you live with that? How do you even justify going to work? All that study and those ideas of science and you now study something that does not exist and look for cures which are not necessary. There is always well earned retirement. I guess that’s public service science and there are plenty of public servants who do nothing really. At least the CSIRO invented WiFi, except it didn’t.
bobl

Amazing ignorance my boy, and of course you resort to insults. You try to claim the increase in Emission proves the hotspot and somehow those two statements are contradictory but that’s WRONG and betrays your grade school science knowledge.

There is no Tropical hotspot that just about every model predicts (apart from the sceptic written ones) and Delta IR increases with Delta T (increase) where models say it should be the opposite.

The increase in emission with temperature that the satellites measure is the reason WHY THE HOTSPOT DOESN’T APPEAR. As temperature rises COOLING (IR emission) INCREASES per the laws of thermodynamics, and heat therefore ISN’T BEING RETAINED in the Tropical troposphere (which would REDUCE IR emission). So the Hotspot doesn’t happen, it just radiates away as you would expect.

Ergo, observation proves the models wrong.

The problem here is that you don’t actually understand thermodynamics, you need to learn some stuff

Utill the models can reproduce this behaviour the NULL Hypothesis (Warming is natural) prevails.

I note no comments on so-called climate scientists trying to repeal the law of conservation of energy!

yarpos

French language reminds us that the word Parliament is comprised of two verbs. Parle – to speak Mentir – to lie

Tags: climate alarms
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments