Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

watch this ;) Title: The best argument AGAINST CO2 causing climate change
Their is no doubt we are seeing extremes in weather on both ends of the scale. The problem with CAGW is that the extreme colds do not fit that narrative.
Lone Sham and co,
Please expand your argument to include all aspects of the AGW view. I think you'll find that many intelligent discerning people who subscribe to it are aware that we are experiencing weather rapidly oscillating between extremes of heat and cold and that citing individual scientific 'proofs' of either side does not take into account the multidimensional, broad diversity-variation factors in a macroscopic view of planetary behaviour, that Michael Patterson has repeatedly had to point out. (note: perhaps the W now stands for 'Warning') I am willing to embrace your proposition on Solar Influence, and wait for it to make itself known as you promise it will, but you seem to use your data to disprove all other theories and factors yourself i.e. they do not fit your narrative.

The outcome as I see it, and since you re-joined Skeptiko, is that all debate on this thread has ended and a number of people (who have views other than yours or David's) have had their argument and personality traits disparaged, under threat, and their presence forcibly removed without their consent or consultation. Goodonya mate! :eek:
So 'you win' -what exactly? Are you happy now?
all the best, Alice in undies
 
From "The Age" way back in 2015

Bushfire scientist David Packham warns of huge blaze threat, urges increase in fuel reduction burns
Forest fuel levels have worsened over the past 30 years because of "misguided green ideology", vested interests, political failure and mismanagement, creating a massive bushfire threat, a former CSIRO bushfire scientist has warned.

Victoria's "failed fire management policy" is an increasing threat to human life, water supplies, property and the forest environment, David Packham said in a submission to the state's Inspector-General for Emergency Management.

And he argued that unless the annual fuel reduction burning target, currently at a minimum of 5 per cent of public land, "is doubled or preferably tripled, a massive bushfire disaster will occur. The forest and alpine environment will decay and be damaged possibly beyond repair and homes and people [will be] incinerated."

He said forest fuel levels had climbed to their most dangerous level in thousands of years.

Mr Packham produced his submission in response to a review of bushfire fuel management announced last month by the state government and to be conducted by the Inspector-General for Emergency Management.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-in-fuel-reduction-burns-20150312-14259h.html

We were warned! This was a powder keg waiting for the imminent spark.
I have finally had space from being distracted by bushfires and thunderstorms [I need new roof now] to read some posts - and the stuff from Packham in particular. There is some merit in his argument, but it is bundled up with other factors. Fuel loads are a consideration for sure, and the absence of an effective load reduction strategy will heighten risk. But, as well, w have more people living in the bush, more people surrounding their houses with flammable plants and not enough folk developing and implementing risk reduction strategies.

It is claimed that when white fellas arrived in Australia the landscape looked 'managed', and that it was burned routinely by indigenous people. Clearly preserving bushland from fire can be a risky matter if sustained adverse weather conditions prevail.

But what we are experiencing now in NSW and Victoria is down to weather - no rain and hot dry winds. It doesn't take a heavy fuel load for a fire to spread quickly. If we think of fire in terms of property damage [which we tend to do excessively] we need to think of ways to discourage fire from burning stuff we cherish [which we are not doing enough].

It is clear that policies and practices have meant that we have been living with a sustained and unacknowledged risk built out of fuel load, building locations and associated risks, an cultural values. The astonishing thing, for a nation that is inherently flammable, is that few of us actually stare that risk in the face and act to ameliorate it.

When I built my studio my local council obliged me to prepare a bushfire risk assessment as part of my DA. I live in a relatively low risk area, and I could show that on my property there was an identified risk - a conifer that would go up like a torch under extreme and adverse conditions. Its still standing for the moment - but after the recent fire season it will be going.

So here's the point of this little tale. I'm okay, but all around me there are patent hazards on private property and if we were hit by fire under the worst conditions we would be at risk because of the fuel load on neighbouring properties. I had to do a fire risk assessment because I was putting in a new building. But what of the existing buildings? Why do the owners not have to do a fire risk assessment?

Our population has grown over the past 50 years, as has the passion for living in the bush. To make room for new people, my home town has new roads reaching into bushland. Timber houses have been built in intimate relation to gum trees. You'd have to say that the question is not if, but when, they are going to be burned. Do I expect any prevention strategy? No.

Packham will likely be ignored for the simple reason that taking him seriously is too much of a bother. This isn't corrupt government at play - but corrupt voters. Let me be clear here - corruption is perverting public interest to private interest - and we, as members of a democratic community do that every time we choose self-interest over the common good.

I am up for at least $1,200 to take my conifer out. I have resisted because of the cost. But I look around and see hazard reduction bills of at least $10,000 on individual properties [next door is at least $10k].

Where I live the weather is changing. Winters are warmer and shorter and summers are hotter. After 18 years I put in air con - after thinking the idea ridiculous as the number of very hot days has increased steadily. The fire season we have been through is the worst on record - but has that just been down to weather? No, it has been due to a combination of factors, but weather has been the major factor.

Regardless of whether we are experiencing climate change for any reason, the bushfire risk issue is a real and ongoing issue. This season it happened that a cluster of extremes came together to produce catastrophic events. This confluence misfortunes can and will come again if we do not act to reduce the risk.
 
Packham will likely be ignored for the simple reason that taking him seriously is too much of a bother. This isn't corrupt government at play - but corrupt voters. Let me be clear here - corruption is perverting public interest to private interest - and we, as members of a democratic community do that every time we choose self-interest over the common good.
I don't quite know what you mean by "corrupt voters", but I suspect voters would tell you that they feel bamboozled by assorted claims and counter-claims. For example, as I understand it, if Labour had won your general election, they would have gone full tilt into decarbonisation, and it would not have made any difference to anything! What I long for is media that doesn't have an axe to grind, and would simply tell the truth.

I read the Guardian article, and it reads extremely cagey. The Guardian is utterly committed to the CAGW story, and yet even they could not deny that the 'fuel' left in the forests was a factor.

What exactly would non-corrupt voters have done at the last election?

David
 
I don't quite know what you mean by "corrupt voters", but I suspect voters would tell you that they feel bamboozled by assorted claims and counter-claims. For example, as I understand it, if Labour had won your general election, they would have gone full tilt into decarbonisation, and it would not have made any difference to anything! What I long for is media that doesn't have an axe to grind, and would simply tell the truth.

I read the Guardian article, and it reads extremely cagey. The Guardian is utterly committed to the CAGW story, and yet even they could not deny that the 'fuel' left in the forests was a factor.

What exactly would non-corrupt voters have done at the last election?

David
The problem with the idealised fantasy of democracy we have now is that we have lost the notion that voting is a matter of considering the collective good. Now we are encouraged to vote for our personal interests. Doing so is corrupt by definition. We do not live in a democracy any more. We use the terminology in a careless way. We do not have a term for what we have - other than democracy.

You may find the CBC Ideas show What is Democracy worthwhile listening to as a podcast.

There is no such thing as media with no axe to grind. All have biases. What you have to learn to do is navigate the biases. That is hard work, but you want a fair picture that is what you have to do these days.

What exactly would non-corrupt voters have done at the last election? Ain't no such thing, save for a tiny minority. And, besides, who knows what they sincerely think the common good might be. If I were a UK voter I would oppose Brexit because I think that is the better path. But I'd take a more radical position over open borders within the EU. I think counties have the right to control who comes in. Indeed I think they have a duty to do so. That does not mean I support racist sentiments, only the right of control.
 
The problem with the idealised fantasy of democracy we have now is that we have lost the notion that voting is a matter of considering the collective good. Now we are encouraged to vote for our personal interests. Doing so is corrupt by definition. We do not live in a democracy any more. We use the terminology in a careless way. We do not have a term for what we have - other than democracy.
Really I disagree. Indeed, I think it is an elitist argument - a variant on the argument that the British people didn't understand the EU and therefore made a mistake when they voted to leave it!

Each individual vote is so small that I certainly don't think about what might benefit me personally - I do try to look at the country as a whole.
You may find the CBC Ideas show What is Democracy worthwhile listening to as a podcast.
Did you miss out a link here?
There is no such thing as media with no axe to grind. All have biases. What you have to learn to do is navigate the biases. That is hard work, but you want a fair picture that is what you have to do these days.

What exactly would non-corrupt voters have done at the last election? Ain't no such thing, save for a tiny minority. And, besides, who knows what they sincerely think the common good might be. If I were a UK voter I would oppose Brexit because I think that is the better path. But I'd take a more radical position over open borders within the EU. I think counties have the right to control who comes in. Indeed I think they have a duty to do so. That does not mean I support racist sentiments, only the right of control.
There was no way we could have got our way on the borders in the EU - so it was Brexit or nothing - and Brexit seems to be really going to happen - because people voted for it, and then heavily defeated the parties that wanted to negate that vote. Also the borders issue is just an example of what is going wrong with the EU, where policy decisions are taken by a small elite of unelected Brussels bureaucrats, and forced upon the populations. The EU parliament has very limited powers and achieves nothing.

I increasingly believe that everyone has a sense (maybe psychic?) when they are being fooled. People who consider themselves more sophisticated, tend to suppress that sense. I suspect that is the reason parties who make a big issue of "tackling the climate emergency" don't get elected.

David
 
Last edited:
Really I disagree. Indeed, I think it is an elitist argument - a variant on the argument that the British people didn't understand the EU and therefore made a mistake when they voted to leave it!

Each individual vote is so small that I certainly don't think about what might benefit me personally - I do try to look at the country as a whole.

Did you miss out a link here?

There was no way we could have got our way on the borders in the EU - so it was Brexit or nothing - and Brexit seems to be really going to happen - because people voted for it, and then heavily defeated the parties that wanted to negate that vote. Also the borders issue is just an example of what is going wrong with the EU, where policy decisions are taken by a small elite of unelected Brussels bureaucrats, and forced upon the populations. The EU parliament has very limited powers and achieves nothing.

I increasingly believe that everyone has a sense (maybe psychic?) when they are being fooled. People who consider themselves more sophisticated, tend to suppress that sense. I suspect that is the reason parties who make a big issue of "tackling the climate emergency" don't get elected.

David
It will be interesting to see how brexit plays out. Forging meaningful trade deals may involve increasing immigration.

e.g:

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/56074dda-95bd-11e9-8cfb-30c211dcd229

The committee’s report highlighted the difficulty the UK would face in building new trade relationships outside the EU after Brexit, unless it also becomes more open to overseas workers, students and tourists.
 
The problem with the idealised fantasy of democracy we have now is that we have lost the notion that voting is a matter of considering the collective good. Now we are encouraged to vote for our personal interests. Doing so is corrupt by definition. We do not live in a democracy any more. We use the terminology in a careless way. We do not have a term for what we have - other than democracy.

You may find the CBC Ideas show What is Democracy worthwhile listening to as a podcast.

There is no such thing as media with no axe to grind. All have biases. What you have to learn to do is navigate the biases. That is hard work, but you want a fair picture that is what you have to do these days.

What exactly would non-corrupt voters have done at the last election? Ain't no such thing, save for a tiny minority. And, besides, who knows what they sincerely think the common good might be. If I were a UK voter I would oppose Brexit because I think that is the better path. But I'd take a more radical position over open borders within the EU. I think counties have the right to control who comes in. Indeed I think they have a duty to do so. That does not mean I support racist sentiments, only the right of control.
Thing is, there would have been no way for Britain to even have attempted to limit immigration had we stayed in the EU. I think it's nonsense to say that most voters are corrupt. Many of us who voted for Brexit and for the Conservatives in the 2019 election weren't voting out of economic self-interest; fact is, we voted the way we did no matter whether or not it would ultimately prove to be in our economic interests.

For me and many others, the whole issue was one of control over our own legislation. We voted as we did to regain sovereignty and self-determination. We considered that the primary aim or the pre-eminent good, and were prepared to risk any adverse economic consequences to achieve it. This is what the elites didn't grasp with their fearmongering over the economy. Even if they turned out to be right, we didn't care. We'll have to wait and see how the economy fares once we're completely out. I have no idea whether we'll be economically better or worse off, and nor, I suspect, do the remainer elites. Whichever way it goes, I'm glad I've voted for self-determination.

I suppose one might say that in a democracy, everyone in some sense votes for the thing that they feel will be in self-interest; but self-interest isn't necessarily selfish interest. I want sovereignty more than I want money, and I want that for future generations, too. I'm wary of globalism, not necessarily because it's intrinsically wrong, but because imo it has been forced at too high a pace -- and why? I suspect because it most benefits the elites, who haven't thought about the long-term consequences of "multiculturalism"; in the end, these might include civil war.

In such circumstances, one is asking for the rise of extreme parties, particularly on the right, and this is what is happening all over the European continent at the moment. I don't necessarily endorse this article in the American Thinker, but it does attempt to explain some of the reasons Merkel is falling and the rise of the right-wing AfD in Germany. Is it a coincidence that the main European country not to have a significant extreme right wing party is the UK? It's also the one which has elected to exit the EU, which I see as a corrective that obviates the need for extreme right-wing nationalism. The first-past-the-post electoral system may also have been a factor.

Frankly, I find the idea that most voters are corrupt repugnant. In a way, it's even worse than the attitude of most remainers. They just think we're all stupid, whereas you think we're all corrupt. I don't know about you, my friend, but I think it's better to be thought stupid (even if one isn't) than corrupt. One can be stupid without malintent, but corrupt without malintent? A much less likely proposition, methinks.
 
Last edited:
For me and many others, the whole issue was one of control over our own legislation. We voted as we did to regain sovereignty and self-determination
I'm wary of globalism, not necessarily because it's intrinsically wrong, but because imo it has been forced at too high a pace -- and why? I suspect because it most benefits the elites, who haven't thought about the long-term consequences of "multiculturalism"; in the end, these might include civil war.
Frankly, I find the idea that most voters are corrupt repugnant. In a way, it's even worse than the attitude of most remainers.
Absolutely spot on!

Regarding the AfD, Nigel Farage decided to invite one of their members to speak at a UKIP conference - they certainly didn't sound extreme anything back then - I doubt if there is anything to fear from them.

David
 
Frankly, I find the idea that most voters are corrupt repugnant. In a way, it's even worse than the attitude of most remainers. They just think we're all stupid, whereas you think we're all corrupt. I don't know about you, my friend, but I think it's better to be thought stupid (even if one isn't) than corrupt. One can be stupid without malintent, but corrupt without malintent? A much less likely proposition, methinks.
I use the term 'corrupt' in a limited sense, which I defined - drawing personal benefit from a public act. So, yes, in this sense we all potentially 'corrupt'. Here's the problem. If the purpose of participation in a democracy is to arrive at a common good, that common good cannot be simply the sum of the majority of individual interests, especially where the common good is seen to be inimical to individual interests.

We have made democracy a contest of individual interests, and open to deception and manipulation by those who claim to align with individual interests. Originally, apparently, the Athenians allocated eligible citizens roles in government by chance rather than by competitive elections. This had the impact of aligning decision making closer to the common good.

So as to whether it is preferable to be thought stupid or corrupt, I would elect to be thought corrupt - though innocent action rather than malign intent. Not all corrupt acts are evil, because not everybody knows when they are acting corruptly. I have had training in corruption prevention - and the line between unintended and intended acts of corruption is clear - once you understand what it is.

Our political processes not only thrive on implicit corruption, they depend on it.
 
It was movements such as Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street that inspired Taylor to re-evaluate what democracy could be — people committed to directing their own way of running things, creating open assemblies and acknowledging the need for equal open participation.
Hmm "Occupy Wall Street" didn't achieve anything. The slogan "Arab Spring" was a clever marketing scheme to 'sell' the terrible war in Syria. Regime change was out of fashion, but giving some assistance to the Arab Spring movement sounded much more cuddly.

Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are an examples of real democracy in action! The Brexit campaign was won in the not-do-affluent parts of the UK - so I think did the Trump campaign.

Real democracy is usually very uncomfortable for elites!

David
 
Last edited:
Hmm "Occupy Wall Street" didn't achieve anything. The slogan "Arab Spring" was a clever marketing scheme to 'sell' the terrible war in Syria. Regime change was out of fashion, but giving some assistance to the Arab Spring movement sounded much more cuddly.

Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are an examples of real democracy in action! The Brexit campaign was won in the not-do-affluent parts of the UK - so I think did the Trump campaign.

Real democracy is usually very uncomfortable for elites!

David
David this was the whole point of the show. Real democracy would never elect a deranged tyrant like Trump. His election is precisely a crisis symptom of democracy in dire crisis. He was elected exactly because the system is failing. When my world turns to shit I turn to good Irish whiskey. Those who can't or won't afford that enact their existential crisis at the ballot box and vote for deranged crooks. Trump is merely the latest in a long line of inept politicians that represent the despair of the dispossessed and deeply disappointed. I don't blame those who want to crash the whole system and have found Trump the perfect political IED - but I would never call his elevation an expression of real democracy - more its death throes. Does it deserve to die this horribly? Probably, because we really have idea what it truly is.
 
Climate Change Hoax COLLAPSES as New Science Finds Human Activity Has Virtually Zero Impact on Global Temperatures

The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.

Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.

The tide has been turning towards the truth, thankfully.
 
There are some thoughts I want to share with you about the “mainstream-fringe” dynamics. I want to clarify what is a “mainstream”, what is a “fringe” and what separates them – with some examples to explain the things better.

1. POSSESSION OF THE CULTURAL POWER AS THE “MAINSTREAM – FRINGE” SEPARATOR

For a view to be classified as a “fringe” one, it is not necessary for it to be defended only by a small minority of population. To the contrary: no matter how paradoxical it may initially sound, most “fringe” positions are supported by the majority of the general populace. For example, a sizable part of the American population rejects the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) explanatory model, is simply irrelevant for the case of its positioning of these people’s view on the “mainstream – fringe” scale. There are a lot of other similar examples: say, more than a half of the American population thinks that there is an intelligent design behind the evolution, and the combination of random mutation and natural selection (and time) is not enough to explain it; however, this view is clearly “fringe”. Much more than a half of the population of any developed Western country, European countries included, accepts the objective existence of parapsychological phenomena like telepathy; nonetheless, this position is also “fringe”. A sizable portion of a population – maybe not majority, but quite a notable part for sure – express doubts about the safety and efficacy of some vaccines, and / or some specific contents of a vaccination schedule, yet such doubts are more than just “fringe” – they are much further from the “mainstream” on the “mainstream – fringe” scale than any of the topics are mentioned previously; “fringe of the fringe”, to call it so.

So, what makes all these topics “fringe”, despite the massive support for any of them? The fact that they dare to defy the positions supported by the hierarchical power – to be precise, by the cultural hierarchical power, one of its three forms (with political and economic hierarchical powers being the other two).

What is a cultural power? It is a hierarchical power, tightly held by a small, yet very active and highly vocal, entitled minority, to define “(un)reality”, “(im)possibility” and “(in)evitablity” themselves – and then to try to force this definition, oftentimes in a forceful manner, on a majority of non-entitled people who, unlike the aforementioned minority, held small-to-zero cultural power, either individually or collectively. This power is not something to be jocular or dismissive about; sometimes it can be more forceful – and therefore more dangerous, damaging and devastative – than the political and economic powers combined. By forcing people to accept the particular dubious and controvertible notions concerning what is “real” and what is “unreal”, what is “possible” and what is “impossible”, what is “evitable” and what is “inevitable”, as if they were indubitable and incontrovertible, the cultural enforcers can control not just their behavior – as political and economic powers are also quite capable of doing – but their very thoughts, and, by extension and to some degree, even their direct experience. And, if some people can resist and reject the attempts of being controlled in such a way – and such people are always present – the cultural power can easily denigrate, defame and dehumanise them, thus also turning them into an easy target for repressive acts by the political and economic powers as well – and, what is most horrible, by large masses of powerless people, who accepted the culturally enforced version of “reality” as their own and are willing to enjoy their own small yet intoxicating drop of illusive “powerfulness” by persecuting, vigilant-style, someone who even more powerless than them – the counter-cultural rebels.

What is the minority that is entitled with a cultural power? In different societies, different minorities claimed the right to define “reality”; but in modern Western society, the near-monopoly of “reality-defining” cultural enforcement is granted to the institutionalised academia. The academicians as power-wielders are, however, are not perfectly monolithic; they are separated in two groups, that are, simultaneously, mutually connected and dependent, since they share the same academic institutional space, yet also mutually competitive and adversarial, since they have to distribute the same power-resource of “defining reality”. In effect, this is a duopoly, quite similar to the Republican-Democrat political duopoly of the USA; two sides of it may be in a perpetual conflict with each other, yet they share the same overarching interest of not letting anyone third (let alone fourth, fifth etc.) to claim their exalted, power-providing status. One side of this cultural power duopoly is the institutionalised community of the technoscientific experts – the expertocracy. Another side of it is the academically entrenched and exalted coalition of the Authoritarian Left activists, usually of the SJW / PC or hardcore-environmentalist nature – the activistocracy, as I call it. It is the dynamics of power struggle (and yet, power alliance) between two powerful minorities of the expertocracy and the activistocracy within the power-permeated halls of academic institutions that define the powerfully enforced versions of “(un)reality”, “(im)possibility” and “(in)evitablity”. And the sum of such versions are exactly what we call the “mainstream” – the picture of the world according to the academic elites.

(An important digression: while it is the Authoritarian Left that are currently in control of the academia, and thus dominant in the sphere of cultural power, it has to share the space, and power, with the Authoritarian Right in the spheres of economic and political powers. As for the Libertarian Left and Libertarian Right, they are equally disempowered, and thus marginalised and banished into the “fringe” zones of society and culture. One may say so: while not everyone who is on the “fringe” is libertarian, almost anyone who is libertarian is on the “fringe”.)

However, the uneasy yet stable alliance between the expertocrats and the activistocrats faces a problem that is not just hard – it is getting progressively harder year by year: the large masses of people, who are culturally obliged to trust the duopoly of the technoscientific experts and academic activists, and to believe everything in the versions of “reality” formulated by them in the blind and thoughtless fashion, dare to scrutinize and check expert and activist pronouncements, and the assertions lying in their foundations – and well as personal and professional integrity of the ruling experts and activists themselves. And, in most cases, they find both the experts and activists themselves, and the positions presented by them as “reality”, badly wanting. As a result, they lose both the trust in the wielders of the cultural power, the expertocrats and the activistocrats, and the faith in the justifications of the cultural power, “the scientific consensus” and “the social justice”.

Such disillusioned people become the new supporters of the “fringe” – the large sector of society, in fact, the majority within it, that is solely defined (and loosely connected) by its defiance of the academic establishment and its “consensus” positions. And, happily for them, they get an increasing support from within the halls of academia itself: there are an ever-growing number of the “renegade” experts (as well as the “renegade activists”) who reject the “consensus” positions and support the “dissensus” ones instead – and encourage the populace to defy the academic elites further. So, the “fringe” sector of society and culture appears, as an alliance between the external (large swathes of the disillusioned populace) and the internal (“renegade” technoscientific experts and academic activists) opposition to the monopolistic, oppressive cultural power of the academic elites, and its anti-hierarchical counter-cultural counter-power is steadily growing.

2. “FRINGE’S” OWN “MAINSTREAM”: THE COUNTER-POWER DYNAMICS WITHIN THE COUNTER-CULTURE

As I said above, the most important characteristic of the “fringe” sector of society and culture is its profound diversity, since “fringeness” of a position is defined only negatively, not but what it is but by what it is not: it is not a position supported and enforced by the duopolistic academic establishment. Otherwise, it can be just anything: from the decisive rejection of the materialism and its highly questionable idea of the inviolability and immutability of the laws of physics – to the moderate doubts about the safety and efficacy of some vaccines; from the radical condemnation of the violent institutional psychiatry – to the detailed criticism of the purely Neo-Darwinian, intelligent-design-excluding interpretation of the biological evolution; from the hesitations and reservations about the usage of GMOs – the similar hesitations and reservations about the dominant HIV - AIDS causation theory.

And, not surprisingly, some of the contrarian views have much more popularity and support within the “fringe” circles than others, thus effectively creating its own internal variant of the “mainstream – fringe” hierarchy: now, one can speak of “the mainstream of the fringe” and “the fringe of the fringe” (or “fringe squared”, as I named it). And – not surprisingly – the degree of the “mainstreamness” and the “fringeness” within the “fringe” is largely defined by the relative degree of social power held by the supporters of this or that position.

One can ask here: but the “fringe” is defined by its powerlessness, isn’t it? Yes and no; “fringe” is defined only by a cultural powerlessness, and even this type of powerlessness is still somewhat relative: to be clearly classified as a “fringe”, a position should be dismissed by the cultural-power-wielding academic elites as a whole – that is, by both sides of the cultural power duopoly, by the expertocracy and the activistocracy, in the same time and to the same degree; and this is not always the case. Moreover, the cultural power is not the only one in existence – political and economic powers also exist, and their influence in the sphere of culture – including technoscience – should not be underestimated.

So, let me describe you a kind of “fringe’s” own informal hierarchy, to clarify how a counter-power can turn into a power of its own.

1) “Almost-mainstream”. This is the highest position of the “fringe’s” hierarchy: views that are supported either by expertocracy or by activistocracy, but not by both at once. The most well-known of such views is the criticism of the GMOs: GMOs, while being enthusiastically promoted by the vast majority of the technoscientific expertocrats, in company with the large segments of the economical and political elites, are being actively opposed by the notable part of the environmentalist activistocrats, in company with smaller parts of economic and political elites, as well as a few “renegade” technoscientific experts. Another one is anti-psychiatry and critical psychiatry: while dismissed by most members of the technoscientific expertocracy, as well as the vast majority within the political and economic establishments, they are constantly kept afloat by the portion of activistocrats in alliance with the “renegade” minority of the expertocrats.

2) “Core of the fringe”. These positions are rejected by the vast majority within technoscientific expertocracy, and dismissed by most wielders political or economic power, yet the activistocracy is not overtly hostile towards them. Therefore, a few “renegade” experts, and a small minority of political and economic actors who support them, can work without being intensely demonised. The most common “fringe” sphere of research with such status – as well as, probably, the most well-known “fringe” area at all, often symbolising “fringe” as such – is parapsychology, accompanied by transpersonal psychology, near-death studies and non-materialist philosophy of mind. Other areas with a similar status include some heretical models and applications within physics and cosmology, such as applied cold fusion – or, as it is more commonly called today, low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) or chemically assisted nuclear reaction (CANR) – or Big Bang-rejecting Electric Universe model.

3) “Distant fringe”. These are the stances that are not just dismissed by the vast majority within expertocracy, but are also furiously attacked by the overwhelming majority within activistocracy, because of being associated with the Right-wing (and activistocracy is dominated by the Authoritarian Left). An easy example of such stance is the criticism of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) explanatory model: it is demonised by almost the whole culturally powerful academic elite, technoscientific expertocrats and environmentalist activistocrats alike, as well as their numerous allies within the political and economic elites, yet the support of the other parts of political and economic elites, ones where the Authoritarian Right is still powerful, keep the CAGW criticism, and the small bunch of “renegade” experts who support it, at the margin of the academic circles, not allowing it to be damned completely and banished to the area that may be called…

4) “Fringe of the fringe” (“Fringe squared”). Here reside the views that are dismissed the overwheming majority within all elite circles combined – be they cultural, economic, or political – and supported only by a coalition of powerless populace (oftentimes a large number of such populace, however) and a very small number of “renegade” experts and activists – “renegade” enough to be banished from the expertocratic and activistocratic circles for their heresy. Any criticism of any particular vaccine, or any specifics of the vaccination schedule, leads one to this censored, ostracized, persecuted area. So is the doubt of the currently dominant explanatory model of AIDS (the one that states that it is caused by HIV).

* * *

So, these are my thoughts. What do you think about them?
 
Last edited:
Climate Change Hoax COLLAPSES as New Science Finds Human Activity Has Virtually Zero Impact on Global Temperatures

The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.

Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.

The tide has been turning towards the truth, thankfully.
What makes you accept the results of this paper ahead of other papers citing different outcomes?

Note: When answering this question, consider that this is a pre-print paper, and has not been subject to peer review. The author cites (only) 6 references, most unpublished, and four are his own "works".
 
What makes you accept the results of this paper ahead of other papers citing different outcomes?
What makes you insinuate everything your question asks and/or implies instead of asking me why I posted it?

I posted it because it is new research and new findings... that is all. I am honest in that the results support my leanings as to the actual truth.

I allow the reader to think what they wish and play it straight forward.
 
What makes you insinuate everything your question asks and/or implies instead of asking me why I posted it?
What am I insinuating?

I posted it because it is new research and new findings... that is all. I am honest in that the results support my leanings as to the actual truth.
Go you!

I allow the reader to think what they wish and play it straight forward.
Fair enough. Hopefully, "the reader" can judge the quality of the research in context now.
 
Top