And what about those mask mandates?
And what about those mask mandates?
The dumbing down of education seems to be behind this. School kids now don’t get analysis, instead they get lots of pseudosciency stuff like gender and aboriginal “science” factoids they have to learn to pass exams and write assessment essays. That rubbish crowds out hard science until they can’t work out what is real and what is fake, and they’re no longer equipped with the analytical tools needed to tell the difference.
There’s an analogy of this in the Chinese traditional medicine industry. This article appeared recently:
“It should not have happened that a medication with no effect to prevent Covid-19 [Chinese coronavirus] was sent to healthy people. It’s even more inappropriate to squeeze the logistics capacity for lifeline products,” a group of medical experts similarly argued in a Sunday post on Chinese medical website DXY.
This unusually stern criticism from top Chinese doctors threatens to derail a very profitable gravy train.
Sound familiar? This is the same sort of situation: add a tiny bit of science, lots of placebo effect, and lots of money, and you have a giant industry which is impossible to abolish and which is dangerous to criticize. Built up over hundreds of years it is now so dug in that it’ll never go away, and millions will die because they have an unshakable faith in it and not scientific medicine.
And no surprise that the money sniffing usual suspects want in on the action:
If even medicine is now going down the rabbit hole like this, what chance do we have with global warming?
On the issue of “Climate Change.” The real story is control, money and power. If that was not the case the rich would be more austere in their behaviour, eg. the absurd use of private planes to every gathering, the lavish mansions and luxury yachts. All they do is preach at us to do what they won’t.
With masks it was fear and control. The political powers knew that masks did nothing but came as a prop for the fearful. My wife was a theatre nurse for years and we always knew even there it was to protect from droplets from the surgeon, not what was promoted plus they were used once only and discarded.
The dumbing down of education seems to be behind this. School kids now don’t get analysis, instead they get lots of pseudosciency stuff like gender and aboriginal “science” factoids they have to learn to pass exams and write assessment essays.
Very true from my observations as a parent. And the spoonfeeding with politically correct views cointinues at university. If parents don’t teach their children to question, analyse and think critically it’s not something they’ll learn in the education system.
Social media also acts as a megaphone and promotes the hive mind mentality.
A fair point on trust here (IMO)
The proposed transition to “net zero” via wind and solar power is not only not easy, but is a total fantasy. It likely cannot occur at all without dramatically undermining our economy, lifestyle and security, and it certainly cannot occur at anything remotely approaching reasonable cost. At some point, the ongoing forced transition… will crash and burn.
[I]t doesn’t matter whether you build a million wind turbines and solar panels, or a billion, or a trillion. On a calm night, they will still produce nothing, and will require full back-up from some other source.
If you propose a predominantly wind/solar electricity system, where fossil fuel back-up is banned, you must, repeat must, address the question of energy storage. Without fossil fuel back-up, and with nuclear and hydro constrained, storage is the only remaining option. How much will be needed? How much will it cost? How long will the energy need to remain in storage before it is used?
There should be highly-detailed engineering studies of how the transition can be accomplished…. But the opposite is the case. At the current time, the government is paying little to no significant attention to the energy storage problem. There is no detailed engineering plan of how to accomplish the transition. There are no detailed government-supported studies of how much storage will be needed, or of what technology can accomplish the job, or of cost.
It gets worse:…. Ken Gregory calculated the cost of such a system as well over $100 trillion, before even getting to the question of whether battery technology exists that can store such amounts of energy for months on end and then discharge the energy over additional months. And even at that enormous cost, that calculation only applied to current levels of electricity consumption…. For purposes of comparison, the entire U.S. GDP is currently around $22 trillion per year.
In other words: we have a hundred-trillion-or-so dollar effort that under presidential directive must be fully up and running by 2035, with everybody’s light and heat and everything else dependent on success, and not only don’t we have any feasibility study or demonstration project, but we haven’t started the basic research yet, and the building where the basic research is to be conducted won’t be ready until 2025.