I have a dream…

…that one day, in the distant future, humanity will once again discover the principles of science and apply them without emotion and without the influence of money. That there will come a Real Scientist who will throw the money-grabbers from the laboratory and – wait. This is getting a bit messianic.

Well that’s not too surprising. As soon as ‘the science was settled’ it stopped being science. It became religion. Like any other religion it needed an Armageddon that could only be averted by obeying (and paying) the High Priests to appease the god of the day. It also needed a Saviour.

I know, you’re immediately thinking of Little Greta and the Church of Climatology, in obeisance to the unquestionable word of the Green God. It’s so much more.

The vapers will tell you of the ‘scientists’ who claim that vaping is worse than smoking and drinking combined. To any rational mind this is utter bollocks but people in ‘respected scientific positions’ have said it so it must be true.

I was once tasked with a menial job for my qualifications, it was a few years before I gave up on science altogether because of the increasing silliness of it all and because of an idiot in charge. I had to check the antibiotic effects of four different antibiotics that were included in pig feed. The project was set up by a different idiot (believe me, it has become so much worse since then) so each antibiotic had a zero sample.

Later I was quizzed by no less than the Head of Research as to why I had not checked all of the zero samples. My response of ‘Well zero of compound A is the same as zero of compound B…’ was met with a shouted ‘I know that!’. Something that told me at once that, no, he didn’t. I later discovered that the Head of Research had absolutely no understanding of statistical analysis, but that’s another story.

Myself and my boss at the time were called into a meeting where an epidemiologist had come up with a great idea he wanted to explain to us. His idea was, in fact, something we call ‘gradient plates’ and which had been in use even before I started my first degree. We were frowned upon for pointing this out.

My final boss took early retirement. He said ‘When we started we were chasing kniowledge. Now we’re just chasing money’. That was 15 years ago. Look at the state of it now.

This is all in the distant past.

Yet we have people saying that ‘scientists have said this so they must be right’ even though science is never ‘right’. Science is never ‘final’. Science is absolutely never ‘settled’.

The general public think all scientists are Spock, working with pure emotionless logic. No. Scientists are human and in any human profession there are shysters and money-grabbers. The problem is that the shysters and money-grabbers are the ones who make the news.

I spent my entire career in science. And yet I am told by those who have never studied science to ‘do some research’. It’s all I’ve ever done and I’m told to do it by people who don’t even know how.

I’ve been sent ‘proof’ of global warming based on ice caps since 1979. I asked why they didn’t want to go back past 1979 and I got a graph of ‘global warming’ from 1880. The end of the Little Ice Age. That was when the Thames froze over. You want to go back to that?

Not that you have any real choice. Humanity’s effect on climate is so tiny as to be irrelevant. We are not as important as we like to pretend. One volcanic eruption pumps out more of the magical ‘greenhouse gases’ than all of human history. I know it’s hard for some people to accept but we just don’t matter at all.

Oh, and the whole ‘greenhouse effect’ was debunked decades ago, even though it’s still around in fashionable pretend-science circles.

Remember the ozone hole? CFCs? Acid rain? Miami underwater by 2000? Remember the New Ice Age of the Seventies, caused by rising CO2? How can you still be falling for this scam? All thse things stopped when funding ran out, and not one of them ever came true. Yet the New Lie is still potent.

Yes, we have a problem with non-recyclable plastics and pollution in general. Nobody can deny that. Yes, we should do something about it before Mother Nature slaps us and tell us to clean our room.

This has nothing to do with climate change. Not a damn thing. It is an entirely separate issue.

Pollution is something we could deal with if the political will was there. It’s not though. Instead they call it ‘climate change’ knowing full well that this is something inherent to the planet and which we can do absolutely nothing about. So the thing we have no possible control over is used to avoid doing something we can control. And there is a whole congregation of the Church of the Green God to support it.

The climate changes. Always has and always will. Holding remembrance services for glaciers is astoundingly silly. Claiming you can change it by installing communism is frankly insane. Nature does not care what we do. Nature does not care about us at all. We are one species among many and Nature has eradicated most of the planet many times and started again.

The ones that survive are the ones that adapt to change. The ones who deny change go extinct.

We are not a special species. Adapt or die.

Oh, and don’t forget to give the glorified weather forecasters more money on your way.

31 thoughts on “I have a dream…

  1. “Holding remembrance services for glaciers is astoundingly silly”

    I don’t think so, events like that must serve as a great cure for depression. Witnessing one is comedy gold. The trees in the video clip below must have died laughing.

    Silliness abounds everywhere but we’ve had these loonies for a long time. A little game for you – see if you can spot any tears with the wailing – the woman who almost pops a vein in her forehead trying to force some (or is she trying to take a shit?) doesn’t count.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. “Yes, we have a problem with non-recyclable plastics and pollution in general.”

    The problem is not the plastic itself though, is it? As I’m sure you will already know, there are many types of plastics and all of them can be recycled. However there are some that would not mix well with others as raw materials and that’s where the problem of sorting arises. That’s a huge job and its been easier just to ship the lot off to China, and we’ve only had this ‘war on plastic’ since the Chinese said enough. So basically it boils down to money because the sorting is not economically viable.

    I think otherwise – a whole, lucrative industry could spring up from plastic recycling, for example shredded plastics can be used in aggregates and they perform very well. Same for the mountains of used car tyres. There is always an alternative use and new innovations. But this is not going to happen whilst everyone is on the environmentalist bandwagon.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I think it works best when a company recycles one thing. There are park benches made from recycled plastic – the company deals only in plastic, no cardboard, glass, cans etc. The problem with how it’s currently done is the councils try to recycle everything and for home collections it all goes in one bin. Of course, you can’t provide a whole range of bins for every house, nobody could store them all!

      A friend of mine puts no aluminium cans in his recycling since he discovered that scrapyards will buy them in bulk. He tests with a magnet, crushes the can and puts it into a bin of his own. When he has enough, off to the scrapyard… which makes a lot more sense than paying to have something with value taken away.

      Those rubber surfaces in children’s playgrounds could be made of old tyres, if they aren’t already, and who wouldn’t love to have a roll of garden path surfacing that takes minutes to install? You could even lay temporary paths across lawns for parties and events, and roll them back up afterwards.

      It needs specialisation, not ‘recycle it all’. Different companies taking different forms of waste.

      If they paid a few pennies per kilogram for that waste, you’d get a lot more people willing to sort it at home. As it is, we have to pay through council tax to have it taken away, so nobody has any incentive to give a shit.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. One thing to remember is that almost none of the climatological research outfits have submitted to independent review and assessment of the computer code they are using to make their predictions. There’s a reason for this: climatology is lagging way behind the curve of other sciences such as physics, where armies of specialists combine to churn out papers.

    The release of code from the East Anglia University unit a few years back is a case in point; possibly an extreme one but as this is the only codebase I’ve seen, i do not know. The original coder of that mess was a self-taught programmer, a phrase which ought to send shivers down the spine of anyone seeking to rely on that code. Programming is a skill, an art and a science and a number of fundamental rules have to be adhered to for a big project to work. One such rule is that if a component fails in what it does, it must complain about this on STDERR and give a non-zero return code.

    The Harry_README file was thus a revelation, since it told of a catalogue of failures to follow best practise. The codebase was basically complete junk in places, and shaky in most others. Even a normal, run of the mill computer science graduate coder would have done a better job of this, and do remember that thousands of millions of pounds are being moved around on the say-so of these results.

    Climatology is a cult, with a huge following. Best to just keep your head down and let the cultists have their way until their way runs out. They may be morons and crazy with it, but there’s an awful lot of them.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Yep. They turned a science into a religion, complete with its own Armageddon which only True Believers will survive, and of course a little pigtailed Messiah to throw the questioners out of the laboratory.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Their ‘way’ is running out fast. The window of opportunity for them to exert control is closing and they are in panic mode. Hence fronting the nonsense with indoctrinated children.

      Next year is the crunch. If the CO2 brigade are right, next year will be warmer. If the solar cycle ones are right, it’ll be colder.

      If nothing changes then it’s all bollocks πŸ˜‰

      My money is on the solar cycle argument. It has real data, not fantasy models, to back it up.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. My feelings on the subject are much the same, except that I don’t have any scientific knowledge. But I have suspected for a long time that Human’s chances of destroying Planet Earth are about nil.
    I inadvertently do my bit by saving rain water, recycling everything and never flying anywhere, but all of these things are done because it suits me personally. My water bill is low, I have got to get rid of the rubbish somewhere and I don’t fly because it scares me witless.
    I shall carry on regardless.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The only thing humanity can destroy is itself and if we do that, the planet won’t even notice. With us gone, the roads will crack, the buildings will fall, Nature will reclaim it all and in a few centuries it will be hard to tell we were ever here at all.

      Really, those people thinking we are some kinds of Weather Gods are insane.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. We are not a special species.

    Oh, I think we are. You don’t still believe the science is settled on the theory of evolution, do you? They still don’t know how the mythical first self-replicating molecule could have developed through time and chance.

    Here’s their latest attempt at an explanation from last week: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/rna-dna-chimeras-might-have-supported-the-origin-of-life-on-earth-66437

    Notice the language on a short article, “may have been”;” might make them better candidates”; “most likely”; “It’s held the field back for a long time”; “which researchers speculate may…”.

    That’s all it is: speculation based on two centuries of lies, half-truths and general desperation to try to validate a nonsense theory on anti-religious grounds (that actually goes back at least as far as Ancient Greece).

    ————

    As for climate change: an excuse to form a world government.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Science is never settled. It’s still possible that evolutionary theory is wrong but there is still a lot of evidence to suggest it’s right. Even so it will always be questioned and that’s as it should be because that’s how science works.

      There are alternatives to ‘life started on Earth’ of course. There is the old Panspermia argument of Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasingh, who believed life originated elsewhere and comets brought the first microbes to Earth. Well, maybe, but that does not solve the problem of the origin of life, it just moves it somewhere else. Personally I think it’s silly but since I can’t prove it’s silly, it has to stay in the ‘maybe’ pile.

      Also, the oft-quoted pepper moth does not in fact support evolution. You know, the speckled moth that is very effectively camouflaged when it settles on tree bark. During the Industrial revolution, factories produced so much soot the tree trunks turned black. Black pepper moths survived, the ‘normal’ ones all got eaten by birds.When the industries cleaned themselves up, the trees weren’t black any more and the pepper moth returned to its normal appearance.

      I’ve seen this put up as an argument for evolution but the moth didn’t evolve. Black variants pop up all the time, they are usually eaten by birds because they are easy to spot on tree bark. Make the tree bark black, and the ‘normal’ ones are the ones that get eaten. Clean the bark and the black ones get eaten again. It’s a really good example of ‘survival of the fittest’ but not one strand of the moth’s DNA changed in that event. It did not evolve.

      There are far better examples but they span thousands of years. Evolution is slow, and that’s why it’s at odds with the belief that the planet is 6000 years old. That does not allow enough time for evolution to do very much.

      As I’ve argued before though, even if you work on the ages in the Bible, the crusher is Adam. In Eden he was immortal and wasn’t counting years. Until he ate of the tree of Knowledge he had no concept of age nor of passing time anyway. He could have been in there for millions of years before he got the boot. Meanwhile, outside Eden, on the rest of the planet, the dinosaurs rise and fall…

      As long as Adam’s age cannot be questioned, the rift between religion and science cannot even be discussed, much less resolved. One side questions everything, the other is based on rigid belief. These are polar opposites and are best left separate.

      The Church of Climatology is a new religion, and yes, it’s designed to usher in a one-world government. A daft idea which cannot work. I mean, nobody can control all the people of the UK, who is going to control hte entire population of the planet? It was a lunatic idea from the outset and will never work. Won’t stop the idiots trying though.

      Liked by 1 person

      • When you mentioned the peppered moths, I thought, “Oh no,” but I’m glad you’re a scientist who understands that it is only evidence for natural selection and not evolution theory. These moths were the poster children of evolution theory for a long time and I venture to say that some school textbooks still include them.

        If this was the best evidence for the ‘Theory,’ it goes to show that they don’t have genuine evidence, even after all this time.

        In Dawkins’ book, “The Greatest Show on Earth” I think he only mentions one instance of a beneficial mutation which adds information to the genome and to my knowledge, it isn’t really an ‘uphill’ mutation anyway. (I’ve forgotten the specifics.)

        And if you don’t have billions of mutations adding new information which builds brand new body parts, you can’t have evolution (theory). And Dawkins struggles to name one dubious example.

        In your career, I assume you have watched many bacteria propelling themselves with their flagella powered by electric motors. Is this possible by time, chance, struggle and death? Most secular scientists seem to laugh at Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity” idea that all the components had to be there from the start in such complex systems.

        Adam lived to be 930 if memory serves (longer life spans due to very few deleterious mutations causing disease and ageing the closer to creation you get). I assume that this includes his time in Eden, but I couldn’t swear to it.

        Up until Newton’s time, I think all scientists believed in a creation a few thousand years ago. Hutton’s unscientific uniformitarianism idea in the late 18th C paved the way for long ages through cunning, but we know from geology that there are vast areas of the same sedimentary rocks containing the same fossils by the billion, indicating huge catastrophic conditions occurred.

        Neocatastrophism appears on the scene, so the science wasn’t settled as far as uniformitarian geology is concerned, at least in some secular quarters.

        I think the world government will work because people are begging to be enslaved to ‘save the planet’. Gender neutrality propaganda will end traditional roles and the evil world empire will control all fertility, what little will be allowed.

        Only the ones with enough faith to resist to the end will have a chance. Wheat/tares.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Maybe we need a real war. A big one. That usually shuts the fruitcakes up. The only pity is so many others have to get hurt.

    Now where did I put my Armageddon machine? Sigh, forget my own head next.

    Anyone seen my white Persian cat?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Could you keep an eye out for my Tabby, y’all. She bogged off a week ago. It won’t have been fear of Armageddon. Someone has agreed to feed her Dog Food more like. But she’s a survivor if ever I saw one, so I’m not unduly worried. But I do mind about the 99 Euros it cost me to have her seen to.

      Now there’s a thought. Could mass castration be the answer?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Already under way. Transgendering toddlers effectively renders them infertile and they become bee- or ant- like worker drones.

        I’ll have a (purely fictional) story about this by Chrsitmas πŸ˜‰

        Like

  7. What stopped the Frost Fairs on the Thames was building the embankment which made it narrower and the flow faster. I quite agree about the church of climatology. Did you see the look on the face of the High Priestess when the Emperor of North America upstaged her? Priceless.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Greta was furious. It’s Entitlement. She thinks that she should be centre stage. It’s that Aspergers Thingy. How dare The President of America upstage her. So she threw a tantrum. Sadly, her rage was decidedly ugly, which wasn’t very sensible. The Common Herd are getting a bit fed up with this. Only fools listen to the rantings of a spoilt brat.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. The sea pollution scam is getting on my tits at the moment. It’s been proved (probably by scientists) that the vast majority of plastic pollution flows out of ten rivers in Asia. but farcebox was polluted today by an ad by greenfleas – or something – desperately trying to make the developed world feel guilty about it. So guilty, I presume, that they’ll pelt Greenfleas with cash they don’t deserve.

    Liked by 1 person

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.