Skip to main content

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

First and foremost,  what is this so called 'consensus' anyway.  You will be horrified to find out,  it's not specifically that global warming is man made.  It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to an uncertain extent!  Here a former member of the consensus establishment turns whistle blower and tells us about the coercion behind the scenes.
(play embedded video)

If you're already surprised, hang in there, because it gets far,  far worse!
But first, let's take a step back for a moment.  Long before our modern consent manufacturing establishment existed, consensus was manufactured by the church which was the establishment of its time.  Anyone who went against gods word was considered a heretic, aka a 'deniar' in the accepted contemporary world view of good people. To be a 'deniar' was to be a bad person.  The absolute settled truth, (in those days God's word) was the equivalent of today's  settled science back then.  The big issue back then was not climate change, it was that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo, and other questioning minds who chose to challenge the status quo were subject to public scorn and often even criminal charges.
But we've come a long way, right?

Actually no.  Not a single thing in essence has changed, apart from the window  dressing and the fact that we are not quite so draconian.

Let me qualify my rationale briefly. Between the 50's and 70's there was an overwhelming leaning towards the view the earth was cooling,  that in itself was something approaching a consensus.


Settled science?  Wrong again! Not even Newtonian gravity,  Biochemistry or precice disciplines such as Quantum Physics are 'Settled Science'.  The models are always revised or improved.  No scientist worth his salt should ever use the term settled science, when they do it obviously smacks of political speak.

Do you really think the fledgling science of Climatology, involving combining the earth's history,  its oceans,  atmosphere,  poles,  ice trends. geological landscape,  solar activity and other cosmic factors from deep space, and puting them all together, could possibly be SETTLED SCIENCE??!!  Give me a break!

In the 70's we moved on and began making bold claims in a variety of well meaning directions.
Here is a link outlining a few of them at the time of the first Earth Day.

And, lets face it, the real inconvenient truth is that things have not really gotten any better with the abysmal and mischievous models, notably the failure of the emergence of the catastrophic feedback loop by 2005, the melting of the poles and the expected catastrophic sea level rise coming from scientists and celebrities alike, usually just after they land on the runway nearest their beach front properties in their gas guzzling private jets.  No names mentioned. I'll give you a clue, its Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio!

But how can this be?  Isn't all of that big oil money famously behind all of the propaganda, and conversely isn't it government funding that lies  behind good science,  especially when spending our tax dollars?  Since I happen to much spend my time attacking the big banks and big oil, because of the geopolitics of globalization, I can tell you for sure,  NO,  THAT'S NOT HOW it WORKS.  Governments, especially governments catering for the neoliberal establishment, typically will cater for special interests just as much as they do for the neoconservative establishment,  they all cut Healthcare,  education, welfare, and social services. The evidence clearly shows us that they all overwhelmingly increase MILITARY spending most of all and seldom follow through on tax breaks to match their campaign promises. And no, they don't bail out the people who lose everything in an economic crises,  they instead bail out the very same Big Banks that cause them.  Here is a link to the precise figures:

The reality that mainstream media presents to us is very much different to the reality that the figures That MATTER speak to.   Do not for one moment be so naive as to think that science can operate in a vacuum,  public science is no different to corporate science.  Whomever funds the science controls the science.  If you control the scientific matters surrounding  public enterprise then its becoming increasingly clear that you can control the perception of a public who are increasingly impressed with science.  You will be surprised to know therefore,  that 100% OF THE R&D GRANT FUNDING ON THIS ISSUE, FROM GOVERNMENT, FOR  OVER 20 YEARS HAS BASICALLY EXCLUSIVELY BEEN TO PROVE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE.
Here is the EPA govt public disclosure.

Few know that NASA's best kept secret is interplanetary climate change,  the little known fact that the planets are synchronized in the same pattern as our Earth, and you would surely immediately think that solar activity would do that.  When all the planets in the solar system heat and cool at the same time,  tossing out the sun as a factor, (in my mind the ONLY one), is pure stupidity! But this is what they are doing. That type of behavior cannot possibly be an oversight, it can only be deliberate chicanery!
Embedded Video. NASA ICC

The more interesting question is why would they lie? Why indeed. This is where things start to get interesting.  Why have the old money dynasties of Europe, and American oil Barons, such as the Rockefeller clan, divested from oil? Is it social responsibility? That would be a first.  And why all the paradoxes?
I"ve actually dealt with those issues in previous posts which you should read, this is is where the penny starts to drop because the information is very well hidden.

Link to post on the role of arch globalists in spin saturated emerging buzzword, sustainability.

Link exploring the role of big banks and globalist climate conferences.

Link to the real role of big oil in the climate change arena.

Penny starting to drop? But what about all those statistics you Googled, and all the good folk over at MSM giving us all those damning figures on looming Armageddon?  Well,  by now you probably realize,  those are not what they seem.
Welcome to the rabbit hole my friends: This is the story of lies,  half truths and misinformation, all in the era of the Algorithm, and big data, which, when put together, manufacturer nothing more than consent.

Link to embedded video on IPCC and N.O.A. climate data manipulation.

Isn't this shocking? Don't you feel as if you've been played? And that collusion can produce suspicious looking graphs like this this graph showing temperature anomalies.


There is a broader game afoot though,  here are steps to protect yourself:. Link. .


Another lie Is that this year is the hottest year in recorded history. What is "Global Average Temperature"?. And is every year always the new hottest on record?  What's the real situation here?  Let's go further down the rabbit hole, let's shatter cognitive dissonance and actually open our eyes  for the first time,  let's take that red pill.
Link to this year's temperature reality, click embedded video below.

But don't fear,  things are changing,  just look at point number 2 on the website for Weather Action.  Weather Action is notable  long range forecasters utility with an unquestionable pedigree.

Including this fantastic related interview interview below.

Which brings us to that secret weapon I eluded to.  The use of the word 'SUSTAINABILITY'.  The clip below points it all out, along with the difference between United Nations  Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030

Here are some assorted links that are starting to reflect a change in MSM thinking as the overwhelming evidence pours in. I think they are looking to cover themselves, because the writing is on the wall for the AGW hoax.

Links of interest:.

Patrick Woods discusses what it all boils down to in the embedded video above.  He goes into more detail discussing The United Nations #AGENDA2030 plan with Open Source investigative journalist, James Corbett, of The Corbett Report.


Popular posts from this blog

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…

You Don't Know What Capitalism Is So Stop Using The Word!

I am writing this for one purpose, to be able to post it every time the issue comes up in conversation to prevent myself from dying of boredom on a few key issues with label intellectuals, you know, the sort who drop labels for the singular purpose of demonstrating their talent at dodging real issues by posing as someone who knows the definition of a word.

When it comes right down to it, I personally think most economic and, for that matter, socio-economic systems across the entire capitalism/ socialism spectrum could work if corruption could just be reasonably controlled.  Many forget that Socialism still runs on the capitalism economics system and the finer points actually come down to policy and regulations. This is often missed.  That being said, I am fairly sure that many of the criticisms of communism for example are valid, and views that it does not work especially well because it tends to kill the inventiveness and passion of the human spirit do stand, but not for the reasons…