Featured

This is The Age of Humans – Now We Know How Nature Works We Must Use Our Unique Abilities to Survive and Prosper Within It, Not Hide From It

This is the starting point for the below, Feynman being prescient again, but a masterclass, albeit in poor video quality.

POINT: We know what to do and have come close to understanding much of nature in the last 200 years. In particular the last 20 years when most of the pseudo science of the Agenda 21 movement has been proven false by observation, especially the models underpinning the IPCC.

The people who would control us through ignorant fear really don’t like that, especially more people understanding that we can know what is happening for ourselves, and it isn’t what the powers that be and the BBC misrepresent as facts when they cannot even be validated at the first pass.

Yet these are the “facts” and “the science” claimed to justify control gained through fear of the “unknown”, that is in fact known, but another version of reality is made up to scare people and claim to justify whatever control is decided upon by the rulers. 

We do know a lot, and can prove much of the environmentalist propaganda and its always unprovable pseudo science false with the now available facts, in particular the observational science of the last 20 years. Reality can be and should be the basis for progress to improve the World for all,  not to regress to the awful past of mostly unchanging millenia we have just started to rise above through science.

But this changes the established realities of power and control that those who hold it now really don’t like. They no longer know best, and it is clear to the mass of educated people. Who sense the organised crime of governments of all kinds, democracies, dictatorships, Totalitarian states. It works the same everywhere, as Goering said a Nurenburg

POINT: At the most basic level, going back to the miserable carbohydrate powered mediaeval past living under constant attack by natural disasters and disease (while the new global aristocracy advocating this will still enjoy the safer privileged lives we do today, of course)  is so self evidently stupid for the mass of people to follow, when it is self evident what modern science and technology has done for humanity.  

Even the population bubble occurred because in fact infant mortality dropped to near zero in many developing countries with sanitation, health care and disease reduction, followed by contraception when kids stopped dying and women could enjoy more independent lives.

The population growth will correct itself naturally, peaking and reducing as women use contraception and live more productive lives, as we already do, because that happened here already. I feel sure you know that, because you have seen it yourself. There is no shortage of resources, the planet is unbelievably massive and has more than met the demands of a few Billion people in fact, with ever less poverty and deaths from disease and famine than ever. The Club of Rome Malthusian nonsense is wholly discredited, but still drives UN agendas. The opposite happens in fact. The more populous and productive we are, the more resources are found and the cost of our ever improving goods goes down.

Why don’t people realise these simple messages? Because they are not exposed to reality often enough by a media who are agents of the controlling elites, some as a direct consequence of their ignorance of how science really works and post industrial arts graduate inability to check it?

It is easy for those in power to promote false beliefs and teach them as if facts in schools it controls by law, and through the MSM, using the money they take from us by law to deceive us, where those being taught do not yet have the formation to validate received wisdom for themselves, so can be deceived hence manipulated by. 

Remember Adolf? He did exactly that. It didn’t end well for humanity. 

XR, Greenpeace, Thunberg, Strong, and the UN through exploiting shallow, greedy and controlling national governments and politicians, who value power and money far above delivering  the best result for their populations, are all using the well tried methods of the Nazis to deceive and control global populations, with a clear plan to  reverse human progress to some Marxist dystopia of uniform suffering of the masses they control. The UN plan a return to the awful past we just escaped in the last 200 years through the use of cheap plentiful energy delivered by intellect and the technological mastery that Feynman describes. That cannot end well for humanity either.

But people can now know the truth, IF we care to find it,  and can expose it to others. But should we? The laws of physics will defeat the Agenda 21 ambitions of the Marxist UN power elites, it will not stand at nation state level, the dominoes will fall, perhaps in the USA that paid for all this deceit to be created inside the UN in the first place. In fact so China and India could plot to overtake the West by destroying Western economies, by action though the unelected UN to make Western government impose regressive climate policies based on the provable deceit of man-made climate change, and the matching deceit of renewable energy as the replacement for fossil fuel it can never be. Only nuclear energy has the intensity, sustainability and controllability to deliver the level of energy that a developed economy requires to remain so, on demand 24/7. These same policies will be ignored by developing nations, to overtake and dominate the same countries that had helped them rise from mediaeval poverty by using the West’s mastery of science and technology. UN Agenda 21.

You can’t make it up. That’s the UN IPCC’s job.

On Scale: Humans vs Nature

There are many things I would like to write about regarding the relativities of scale with respect to both energy and climate science, including the scale of our energy use versus what renewables can actually deliver, and the stark realities of energy density and managing intermittency that prevent any attempt to create a cheap energy dependent developed economy using the weak, diffuse and unpredictably intermittent energy sources of a feudal economy.

Such a belief is simply delusional in obvious and absolute energy fact and physics any qualified engineer can quickly calculate, no models required, because the science is known, absolute, and guesses are a bad idea when reality is known.. The simple concept of electrical storage at grid scale is practically impossible and even if theoretically possible it would be so costly in resources it is a self-evident lunacy compared to the simple cheap abudant sovereign solutions of nuclear energy. As well as inadequate the energy of reneewable sources is fundamentally limited by nature, so cannot be scaled to meet any need on demand as dispatchable sources can, it just can’t. So how do you electrify fossilpowered enrgy use with renewables when you can’t have enough to meet current demand over an average year?

But what directed my fingers to the keyboard regarding the realities of scale was a question that came to me this weekend, when I was asked about the impact of wars on the climate by a journalist, and it struck me very strongly that this exposed a common delusion about the power of humans relative to the power of nature we exist within, due to a total lack of understanding of the relative realities of scale involved.

So I wrote the below. I hope it helps position the significance of humans on Earth – as almost undetectable in the scale of natural cause and effect on Earth’s natural systems.

The most obvious place to start was the reality of the significance of humans within the main natural systems of Earth climate, and of Earth systems at scale relative to the solar system it is a part of, which our efforts can neither affect nor change in any way which will not simply disappear into the sheer scale of natural reality most people cannot begin to grasp. Some even consider themselves or our species somehow significant within the reality of nature at a planetary scale, on which we are, in reality, an intelligent but temporary and tiny amount of sentient froth.

Humans are a rather interesting development of the short lived primates over a few million years of Earth;s 4.5 Billion years, evolved by a geological tectonic event 3 Million years before present, (3Ma BP) into a smarter, but still short lived, species. We can understand the natural world about us, use this knowledge to make machines that increase our power, and exploit the resources nature offers, especially those beneath the Earth, that are an indispensable part of out devlopment as technological aimal, and protect us against the planet’s threats and extremes, both natural environmental extremes and biological threats. Even bio engineer ourselves in surgery and with drugs that maximise useful life expectancy, and create the environmental systems systems for a few to venture into the hostile freezing void of space that our planet moves within, but we can never adapt to. Send a robot? …… perhaps.

But such feats that breifly protect us from the realities of a natural environment are, like flying or diving, are a tiny effort within the natural planetary scale of things. To believe humans can control the natural world at a planetary scale is a whole other level of delusion. Because the forces the more delusional humans might think they have are in clear and absolute fact wholly insignificant, compared to the scale of natural forces, that truly dwarf any impact we can imagine ourselves ever having, or being able to control if we could create such power.

So to relative scales and their inconvenient truths. I had a chat with a journalist who called to discuss an idea they were considering regarding how the wars going on now would affect climate, more than changes in CO2 from industrialisation, etc. I had to keep repeating what was apparently hard to accept, the realities of scale say the answer is “none”. For example the idea that one average Hurricane requires the energy of about 200 Hiroshima sized nuclear bombs kinda spoilt the perceived belief of some comparable relativity of power between nature and humans. This includes the tiny effect of both weapons and AGW/CO2, both infinitesimal in absolute power of global energy system terms. Weapons concentrate a significant to humans energy in a very small space to do a lot of localised damage to vulnerable animal like humans and their built structures, but have no measurable effect on a World Wide scale.

The total radiative effect due to human activity since 1850 is guessed to be 1.6W/m^2. The level of negative stabilising control feedback from the oceans, net of water vapour GHE positive feedback, is over 10W/m^2 for each degree of warming. Go figure.

And also, on a quick calculation I will check again later, the amount of solar energy falling on the planetary climate system every day is over 8 Million times that we generate for our own use in a similar period, which is 179TWh from all fuels and energy sources. So how much will this extra level of enrgy entering our weather systems affect the planet that is receiving 8 Million times more from the Sun? Answers on a postcard. Do your own checks first, etc. It’s not hard. Ask Google and do the maths. It just multiplication and division at basic high school level.

So to human versus natural relativities, which I will return to in an enrgy specific blog , having floated the overall global reality below, as regards the realities of human energy production and the actual effect of its production on the global climate While on the subject of scale, it is informative and sobering to consider the illustration below, as regards the overall water and freshwater proportion on Earth, the smaller of the two drops compared to the rocky Earth in the image.The freshwater on Earth’s surface is the smaller blue dot. The tiny skim of water that is Earth’s 70% ocean coverage has the largest effect on the Earth’s ability to control its global temperature within a narrow range, comapred to a rocky planet.

https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/worlds-water-1613×2048.jpg

Interesting, but take another look at that rock. What is it in reality ? Under a wafer thin Creme Brulée skin, the Earth itself is in fact almost entirely molten and trying to get out through whatever small holes in its skin it can make, and the whole issue, together with the water and air on top of the wafer thin skin, is held together by gravity. ( But not powered by steam, for the Rugby fans here)

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/80a24352-67a4-42eb-971a-a9a867ac1e98/d2wy2y4-f2a2c10f-57ab-4dca-ab87-361e98938a59.jpg/v1/fill/w_1095,h_730,q_75,strp/inside_the_earth_by_streincorp.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwic3ViIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl0sIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiIvZi84MGEyNDM1Mi02N2E0LTQyZWItOTcxYS1hOWE4NjdhYzFlOTgvZDJ3eTJ5NC1mMmEyYzEwZi01N2FiLTRkY2EtYWI4Ny0zNjFlOTg5MzhhNTkuanBnIiwid2lkdGgiOiI8PTEwOTUiLCJoZWlnaHQiOiI8PTczMCJ9XV19.2_c8oYWTD6JnOeYyntYfSasYzxnM-ShGJ6t_M209Yj0

That is why its spherical, a ball of molten rock held together by its own gravity, a which also keeps the water and atmosphere in place and under pressure, wobbling like a giant rock jelly beach ball in the varying gravity of its solar system partners, mainly the Sun and Moon, that controls its shape as well as its equilibrium temperature in a stable orbit around the Sun, distorted by the Moon, varying on periods from geological to daily. It’s shallow oceanic puddles on 70% of its surface, only 4km deep on a few km of rocky skin, change the dominant ocean surface temperature continually to adjust to changes in incoming enrgy and outgoing radiation passing through the changing atmosphere to space, as regards water vapour content and other, less effective, greenhouse gasses, on which humans have a tiny effect, about 10% added to the natural and relatively small total greenhouse effect since 1850. The natural system is strongly controlled by the oceans that work continuously and wholly naturally to maintain a stable thermal equilibrium, which it does with massive oceanic feedbacks to changes in the surface temperature. At all times the system must ensure a net balance or the system would veer off heat balance one way or the other, the natural negative feedback that is created is proportional to the imbalance, between heat in and out, so is always just enough to balance them. And, most important, there is a always a strong negative feedback from three dominant controls to any imbalance that changes the current natural thermal equilibrium, and hence changes ocean surface temperature, which in fact must vary constantly, because it cannot be constant when its role is to balance the system in a varying environment. These controls are far more powerful than we can possibly imagine.

Note carefully that the concept of a stable sytem is fine, but that this requires constant change in temperature to balance the constantly changing system on multiple periods and also against unpredictable extreme events. Nature does not stay still.

Such an expectation, of sustained stability without change, is self evidently delusional – when the known change of the various variable factors involved is considered. As the geological record shows, constant change is the natural reality. An assertion of change as unnatural is a simple lie, if spoken by anyone claiming expert understanding of the natural systems. Or the speaker self evidently has no serious knowledge of the subject.

The continuous natural feedbacks to natural cyclical and extreme events, of massive scale relative to anything humans can create, balance Earth’s massive heat input from the Sun, a fusion reactor a million times bigger than Earth , against the Earth’s rate of heat loss to the absolute zero vacuum of freezing space. This happens mostly through ocean surfaces changing to whatever temperature that equilibrium requires, a form of planetary sweating that also forms clouds that reflect the sun to reduce incoming energy reaching the surface.

Cool ;-). Especially if you consider the scale and volatility of the Sun’s activity and our changing orbit around it, which can vary the solar energy by over 26% at 100,000 year maximums extremes of the Milankovitch eccentricity, plus those of obliquity and precession, of which their have been many cycles. The Sun, for scale, is a Million times the volume of Earth and is a very large fusion reactor held together by …. gravity. Just like Earth. But hotter, and MUCH bigger.

/https://tomroelandts.com/sites/tomroelandts.com/files/field/image/sun-earth-moon.png

The reality of “climate change” observed in the record is whatever change of temperature has been required to maintain Earth’s thermal equilibrium in space. And, as is clear from the measurement of change, as well as the reality of planetary existence, average global temperature is never constant, because it must vary to regulate the amount of energy energy going in and out, from multiple causes. The balance between such forces is at a scale impossibly large for humans to contemplate. Or to change significantly.


CONCLUSION: The temperature Earth needs to be, when it needs to be, is delivered by forces more powerful than most people can possibly imagine, which are natural at scales that dominate any effect that humans can create. Humans are passengers on this system. The best we can do with ourtechnologies is protect ourselves fro antaure that kept us threaned until the warm Holocene allowed farming and surpluses and thus led to technological societies where the energy we can now command can keep larger numbers of us safe and able to commuicate and also resist disease, famine and even war – protect ourselves from nature. THis can continue for as long as we can best apply human intelligence to best use resources that the Earth provides us with, from the air, land and sea. And maximise the energy we can extract from nature to do that as best we can. Certainly not to impose the opposite an. by reversibg enrgy use per capitto profit elites while we ose properity and freedoms, elites who reward their academic priests to promote their backward fraud on the measured facts, usually inadequates with a poor grasp of maths, physics and the broad systems grasp required to join the science reality dots, as becomes evi. obvious in any serious debate on the facts and physics. Their great belief in their own abilities and wisdom is unsupported by their professional formation in almost all cases. Don’t know what they don’t know. Don’t wanna know any inconvenient truths they don’t wanna hear,. And…..

Activists can’t handle the truth. So will not debate it on the facts, and attack those who debate reality because they have studdied and understand i, as denirers, which they are, deniers of lies created to defraud the mass of people for political purposes. Because informed scepticism and proof by observation are the basic principles of real science, which cannot be allowed to be spoken to a public audience. And those are that nature has our back and there is no detectable problem on Earth that huamns have created at a significant planetary scale. JUst a tiny amount of localised noise, on the meqasurements we have made. Earth and nature are not bothered by humans, at and global scale.

Given its scale, ONLY nature can decide what is real, by the way it changes, on the facts we can measure. Real science. Nature decides what change really happens, not models that falsify any effect’s humans may have on nature by exaggerating the effects of their chosen problem du jour in their predictions, by 100’s of percent. Environmentalist models are contrived frauds, built on erroneous and cherry picked assertions and given wholly unrealitsic powers by their modellers, AKA sensitivities, so cannot expect to predict reality, so they get it wrong when we measure what really happens. Because they are fairy tales, science fiction, their authors simply make up to deceive for reward and academic recognition, in a branch of science corrupted by politicians, for pun blically stated objectives of transfer of power and profit globally.

Only the observation of nature can decide what is real, by the realities it commands and we observe, and about which there is only one truth, the one we measure. And those measurements expose the predictions of models that do not happen as claimed for them in the natural world as false. Now, and for ever, ever since satellite records began in 1979.

I hope this is a good way to start talking scale, as regards our insignificant place in nature. There may one day be relics left to show an unlikely visitor or future intelligent species from a planet far away, that an intelligent species that could build machines to serve them , powered by energy they had devloped the skills to create to assist that end, had once occupied this planet, if they drop in before the whole Earth is redistributed as its constituent elements as our Red Giant Sun consumes the Earth we were told to save. For whom or what exactly? When its gone, its gone.

It is overpoweringly obvious when contrasting our power that nature allows us to have, with the overall power nature has, that human activity can have no effects at the natural scale of the global environment. All is transient, everything changes, naturally, cyclically and exceptionally, The natural Earth feedbacks have control. Not humans. So far. Earth’s climate will spend most of the next 80.000 years 8 degrees colder on average than the short, current, Holocene interglacial, now cooling down its neo glacial phase, which the coldest end of in a few thousand years will render most of Northern Europe and Canada uninhabitable until much of the is under kilometers of ice sheets, and the ocean levels 130 metres lower than now ……… just like the last ten times. Makes 3mm pa sea level rise look a bit slow, and that’s natural cahnge, mostly. Nothing we can do will affect any of this future significantly. There are more important questions to ask than about a few millimetres of sea level change pa, such as….

“Will civilisation survive when the people who built it are losing their lands under the ice, the Riviera is more akin to the UK South coast and the populations of whole sub continents must relocate or die.” Now THAT’s a climate migration, of the natural kind, on a planetary scale. All totally natural and inevitable. Forget that nation state border s***..

QUESTION: What level of stupidity can suggest humans reverse their use of cheap plentiful enrgy, after 1 Million years of hunter gathering subsistence survival in the cyclic ice age cycles was followed by a short 10,000 years period of warm plenty from agricultural surplus in the short warm Holocene we live in, when we learnt how to better protect ourselves from nature, how to ensure surpluses of food, and most recently generate the energy to do many more things at lower costs so all people in a society could live free, full safe lives protected from nature.

Especially when the only possible consequence of climate action is a return to being clever animals in some post industrial feudalism run by self declared elites in the glacial phase of an ice age, in which elites alone are allowed the technological benefits they control, and ration a small proportion of to the masses by climate law, “for their own good”. In the name of things that self evidently cannot and do not happen as they claim.

It’s just obvious. Doesn’t anyone learn anything about real science and economics at school?

No. Because that’s not what they are told to believe by the woke teachers and academics who create and promote the climate science scriptures you must believe, because their salaries depend on promoting the narratives of the elites that employ them. Many of them don’t even understand the physical reality and facts of the hard science, just what they have been told to believe and proseletise, so the majority of the public they deceive must believe, and surrender their use of energy use and share of natural resources to the elites, along with the wealth and freedom that gave them, so only the elites can now decide who gets them.

All this is in turn based on self evidently false beliefs and the absolute science test of definite theories by observations. Because the claims of climate science as imposed by politicains deny most of the hard won scientific understandings of the absolute realities of the natural World, and their true causes. Something that its straightforward to demonstrate, but this is not allowed. Because it is possible.

Something’s amiss, as Will would say. And it starts with a complete denial of the sheer SCALE of the fundamental reality of the controlling natural forces, that we already understand, and have developed ways of living with much more safely, using our ability to create a small amount of intense energy to make our small sophisticated cities and other more dispersed habitataions safer in so many ways, adapting to living within a natural World that, often and unknowingly, is extremely hostile to life on land, but with much reduced harm when humans can use the technologies that cheap plentiful energy has provided us with to warn, defend and protect us.

But always by adapting our defenses and behaviour to nature, never by attempting to control the whole planetary environment at scale, a self evidently impossible conceit in fact, and a stupidity on a massive scale to believe possible, in ignorance of the most basic scientific reality. On the facts we have measured.

PS/Footnote: This blog,. like human understanding and real deterministic science, will always be a Work In Progress. No science is settled, so all is questionable. Unless its a lie and people profit from its belief, so it cannot be allowed to change. And is thus not science.

This work will be corrected by any input that correctly applies proven physics usinf its laws and /or a verifiable datasource. As I rewrite this is the FOURTH edit, to make the same points better, from a finer tuned approach, after further thought. All I ask is you make the same informed and rational science effort in any response.

© Brian RL Catt October 2023
12:52 PM

Population and Sustainability

The truth science knows and the lies they tell

NB: A Work in Progress

This blog is to share simple facts based reality, defined as what the data and science gathered to test that reality says, regarding population and the resources available to support it. Such a simple approach to testing the reality exposes the absolute and knowing deceit of the limits to growth and exponentially rising  claims about dangerous population explosions that clearly are not happening as described, but promoted for the gain of their own ruling class by those holding false in fact Malthusian beliefs regarding human development . I have written this to make it clear that their  false claims are easily disproven on the facts we know very well, because governments monitor them globally. So the rhetoric regarding population growth and being unable to support it with available resources is demonstrable and delusional rubbish, on so many levels and facts.

As regards population, this was well/best described to millions of people by Hans Rosling, then quickly forgotten by the weak minded and hard public and chattering classes, to follow the easy sounding woke beliefs of the likes of Thunberg’s and Attenborough’s contrived and knowing deceit. People are clearly naturally gullible and unable to test assertions, even prefer to be part of a tribal belief in untested authority when the facts are there to check. Not very promising for a society that depends on understanding and deploying technology effectively to continue to survive and advance through the prosperity and surpluses we generate through the increasing use of plentiful cheap energy per capita..

First let’s be clear about the reality of the changes in global poverty and health, which are that poverty is decreasing as fast as health is increasing, at an accelerating rate, while population rises as a single bubble effect, that ends when birth rates fall as infant mortality and modern disease control and health care becomes pervasive in developing countries. Which needs the wealth only increased energy use can deliver.

Counter intuitively, experience has proven that  raw materials and food societal development needs are not limited by currently known resources and methods – the inbuilt and obvious nonsense of Malthusian beliefs. The record also shows that the supply of food, goods and other resources have expanded to become more plentiful at lower cost as the population demanding them increases. This is self-evident when the data is examined. You can check the data from the study of facts for yourself (avoiding the opinions of “experts” claiming to represent that data tp you) , better than believing what a blogges  writes . I address some details below, mainly as regards population. The primary subject of this blog. The text below is itemised to keep the core point separated and summary as I felt appropriate to making the point.

1. With growing wealth and Western medicine available to many billions more, the reality of how the population has and will change as a result of this massive improvement in human survival, in particular infant mortality, deserves analysis, not belief in the overt nonsense in the overt and known facts talked by activists like the Erlichs, Thunberg, Attenborough, XR, etc.. Who seek to deceive by misrepresenting the facts science knows, in the name of their beliefs, which are clearly false on the facts of nature and human activity that science and statistics have recorded and anyone literate and numerate can easily check, but prefer to believe than do the work and repeat the facts to others.

As my go-to man on this, Hans Rosling says, “we have never lived in harmony with nature, we die in harmony with nature”: Words of wisdom, from a statistician who worked first in 3rd World medicine so knows reality. Our primary responsibility is to protect ourselves from Nature so we live fuller lives and don’t get sick or are harmed by natural events that will occur and we cannot control, or even influence, but can defend against by relocation or adaption. Mark them well.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI

Hans Rosling explained this very well, many times, to massive lay audiences, who then forget reality to listen to the easier to follow simplostic, delusional, fearful scare stories of the Malthusian nonsense of the idiot Attenborough, an hard of physics naturalist presenter who seemed nice, but know nothing of relevance about the global climate system. But the masses preferred to believe this celebrity naturalist who clearly has NO idea what he is talking about, based in claims that deny the observations of nature, which he claims to present but actually doesn’t know. While they fail to notice his fellow naturalist Prof David Bellamy, a real Academic before being a presenter, is removed from mass media platforms because he suggests the climate rhetoric is deceitful and not what science knows at all.

As you can check for yourself from the original data, that Attenborough has probably never read, just presents his script earnestly for his money.

The other problem around climate and population is that so many people in developed countries, who cannot even see the reality, believe the deceit of left wing activist MSM arts graduate “communicators”, and their supposed facts about climate change they overtly understand little of. But audiences prefer to believe invalidated assertions, so have become ignorant and lazy-minded “woke” victims of false tribal belief about most subjects concerning the natural and human World, useful idiots, created by dishonest and deceitful National politicians, educators and media. As Rosling exposed as regards population – that the BBC broadcast, but Attenborough simply ignores.

 3. When children stop dying, women can, and do, stop producing them, because they are not needed. The women  become more productive as a result, so are freed from producing and rearing too many children to maintain the population levels so can now contribute to the economy, if allowed. A real bootstrap effect. Not what you are told. Because it doesn’t support their narrative, that human development is bad.

QUESTION: What is the planet being saved for? What is the purpose or logic of preserving rather than using a Planet that can support the continuing development of intelligent life, and will ultimately live and die with its Sun, when its resources , so precious and supportive of the development of a species that can uniquely use to engineer nature to their needs, using technology that has understood how nature works (physics) , will be consumed and recycled randomly in Space by the growing Red Giant and its subsequent remains, to no useful purpose at all???

Should we simply deny the measures we can take to make human lives better and die “in harmony with nature”? Earth and its, albeit short lived organic  human species represent a level of order in the Universe that is clearly rare in intelligence density, and should be able to maximise its potential while it lasts, not wait to be toasted in ignorance, the future the Greens apparently prefer.

4. Back to current population. The reduction in infant mortality creates a bubble of the resulting adult population, a generation of 6 child families all survive in now more populous  and formerly high infant mortality countries. But they so reduce birth rates to a lower replacement level of children. Hence the rapid growth soon stops. As does further pressure on resources, which the developed world has provided the technology and support to meet, and avoid the consequences of, except where greedy power obsessed humans fight for control of developing countries.

5. Such growth is not exponential rise, in fact its exponentially decreasing once the infant mortality falls, already at Western replacement levels in Bangladesh for example. 

So claims that human population growth is unsustainable are simple numerical and easy to check deceit on the fact of demographics by knowing liars. As already explained above by Rosling.

This reality already happened in many currently developing countries, before they even became developed, perhaps partly HOW they will become developed, more productive with more energy use per capita plus more time to be productive.  Bangladesh Birth rate is 2.1 children per woman, if you doubt this ask Google/Echo/Alexa/Siri 

“what is the fertility rate per woman in XXX”. ANS for Egypt: 

“The value for Fertility rate, total (births per woman) in Egypt was 3.37 as of 2017. As the graph below shows, over the past 57 years this indicator reached a maximum value of 6.72 in 1960 and a minimum value of 3.01 in 2006” 

6. I suggest those who think population is not a self-evident and self-correcting hence sustainable problem of prosperity and better health care watch Hans explain above, if you didn’t already. Or be self identify as the unknowing humans he describes.

Because it’s as deterministically obvious as your beliefs are wrong on any logical factual basis, on the historical evidence of development in the West, for a start. As he explains, a Monkey has a better chance of getting this basic knowledge right by luck than a University professor by what they believe.

People are expected to prefer to believe the prejudices of ignorant specialised academics with reputations to protect whose ignorant opinionated arrogance denies the simple global facts of the numbers recorded by governments, that. but no one bothers to check the actual data. Or think. Far too hard.

7. Also note again, that the Malthusian idea that more people make resources scarcer and more expensive, which worries the elites who want to control the supply and demand of most of it for themselves. But that is also a delusion on the facts. 

The majority of what people need has increased in abundance to match demand, at lower prices as the volumes demanded increases.  These are the facts, versus the deceitful rhetoric of Malthusian delusionals like Attenborough and the Erlichs, who make alarmist end of days claims regarding famine and scarcity that are overtly false on the available facts of what is happening in the real world we can measure – to scare people into supporting their nasty psychopathic, regressive, controlling and absolutely unjustified by nature agendas.

QUESTION: Which to believe, the beliefs of zealots and liars, or the facts we can measure and check for ourselves?

8. The Mathusian rhetoric was wrong when it was invented, before technological society harnessed fossil fuels to develop its output per person, then massively more powerful nuclear energy to carry this development of our ability to control hence defend ourselves from nature and move our developemnt forward to higher level still, when fossil energy has really gone. (And remeber synthertics can replace natural compounds if you have the energy to create them.

POINT: The supposed limits to growth were never the real limits, given our ability to explore, extract more difficult reserves, adapt and improve our use of technology.

If you have any doubt of how this works, and prefer qualitative words that describe it, JFK did not, and prdoduced an eloquent description of how the human race have advanced in 200 years using plentiful cheap energy to multiply human powers as the science painfully won in feudal societies was finally realised. This well edited set of points from his Rice speech makes it clear WHY we can only move forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th5A6ZQ28pE&t=122s

nb: Note (at 1:20s) how steam delivered the future we now enjoy, and how clearly he warns of the dangers of ending progress using the precautionary principle, resistance to all change to preserve the ruling classes control of people and money, that religion had imposed for so long by fear of death, and we have only just overcome to ake the greatest change for human progress in one Million years over 200 years.

Our problems of development have always been overcome by human ingenuity, as Kennedy makes clear. If you recall, genetic engineering of crops by selective breeding and some forms of disease control have been  improving since before the stuck in time and place thought processes of the unimaginative Malthus, and the fear of progress in the studied ignorance of their limited imaginations we see in green thought. All as daft and unknowing then as Attenborough et al now, , but without the data at that time to make it clear the ideas were wrong, as we actually have now, and Attenborough has when he spouts his evil deceit, that will kill millions, if followed, from cold and disease that regression to energy starved feudal lives will bring to many, reversal of economic development in the West, denial of that progress to the developing World, etc.etc.

9. The number of atoms and molecules on Earth will stay the same while gravity works, so, if there are no natural substitutes for exhausted natural resources, there are always synthetics, which we can make using available molecules with our technology, plus the inexhaustible cheap energy that nuclear power can deliver to maintain a far more developed and richer society, better able to afford to care for its environment as it prospers in the developing World as we already have in the Western World, while all areoncreasingly better protected from the extremes and diseases of nature.

We have reversible reactions to make synthetic fuels, collect the exhaust CO2 and water vapour and add energy to recycle the fuel molecules, ,  wholly sustainable. Synthetics can replace  exhausted or inferior natural resources with  new materials. Plastic is a good one, Carbon fibre, etc.  synthetic meats that are actually edible and tasty, etc.

Some doable at scale now. Others will become doable as any real shortage, that new exploration cannot supply, makes their development necessary. 

10. What people believe anout population and resoirces it needs amd its effect on the planetary environment are clearly wrong on the evidence of what has happened. Also what can happen, if progress is preferred to a return to feudal economies the greens plan in the name of irrational fear that is unsupported by their false in fact religious belief led rhetoric, that they promote to control humanity and deny the progress that will best serve us to the mass of people, ro keep the best for themselves in their Malthusian blinkered beliefs, that the simple data does not support in fact.

11.  Fortunately developing nations understand reality and back to the future delusion is certainly  not the plan of educated technocrats in India, China – nor Africa down the line. South Africa, much of Northern Africa and Egypt are already well on the way to a lower birth rate and  development led by increased energy use.

But these are only the facts, and it self evidently remains far easier for most people to believe what they are told by people  whose agendas are regressive , controlling and selfish and exploit false fears of untestable threats in fearful people who seem unable to check the facts of how things really work. Sad commentary on most of the human race in the supposedly developed Western world that supposedly leant better than to trust religion during the Protestant enlightenment. You can see why religions get such easy unquestioning following when humans can still so easily prefer to slip into easy belief in, or conformity with, buggaboos – rather than understand reality and question authority as critical thinking of a secular education taught them to. Or failed to in most cases..

Given what we know, as things are,  global population is not likely to exceed a sustainable 11 Billion, decreasing because they are all now developed,  well supplied on the evidence of Simon.

And I suggest we have not yet scratched the surface (sorry) of what the planet can support (except in Australia, the best eroded hence largest open cast mine in the World, as I half understand the geology?)

Sustainability of the Human race is not a real problem, if we keep moving ahead and making everything better, safer, more survivable by increasing the output per capita people can achieve with our enrgy dependnent technologies and better discovery and extraction..

All this is sill dwarfed by the natural forces of a planet we are simply insignificant porganic froth upon and have little effect on the natural cycles of in space.…………. recycled Dinosaurs and Cycads from the last epoch. Same molecules, different species.

nb: The same approach, of checking the easily accessible facts, is possible as regards climate change. But the platforms and channels of public communication have now been closed to those prepared and able to do this. So the facts about climate, as with population, and the faux solutions to the actually non-problem of a very small effect on the Lapse Rate from CO2 emissions, exponentially diminishing with concentration, can be hidden from the proletariat.


This deceit by the powerful allows the beliefs created to be monetised for the profit of elites. Also to advance the economic progress of Asia over the developed West, the primary goal of the UN IPCC. But that’s another story.

This is the end of this Population and Resources 101 blog.

©BRLC 11/2021

ENDS

Climate Change Realists are Having the Wrong Argument

I would like to make very deterministic science point re climate – and energy if I can do it fast and hard enough. My point is simple. We now know the facts that science did not when all this presumptive science was asserted by those paid for it by Maurice Strong at the UN IPCC in the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s, when it was based purely on assertion with political objectives, and nobody could prove the causes of climate change either way. Now we have the facts and we know the models are wrong by the 40 year failure of their predictions. Also that what we observe is neither excessive nor abnormal in history. Natural change.

Q: So why are we even debating the predicted fictions of models and renewable energy when we have the facts?

A: Because that’s where the money is at and scientists are not good thinkers outside their boxes or grant criteria. There is no money in showing climate change is natural and renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuel use on the physics. Only nuclear can do that. And if nuclear will get you though the winter when its dark and the wind doesn’t blow, you don’t need renewables and the climate change protection racket is blown.

As an engineer and physicist I prefer such basic physics and the facts of observations to the theories of activists and politicians who cannot prove their assertions so attack the questioner.

Because “If the theory  doesn’t match the observations, its wrong”. Feynman. 

Even though we have the observations that overtly disprove the predictions, and thus the causal science regarding CO2, academics who disagree with CO2 as significantly causal still argue about models when confirmatory and independently verifiable observations are the only absolute test of reality. So those most able to argue the reality are lead into and comply with the antagonists agenda and have entirely the wrong argument, about things that cannot be proven. If you have direct evidence you use it, circumstantial evidence is a distant second.

e.g. It ain’t happening as claimed, so its wrong.

Also the measures taken to claim to change the non problem are pointless waste of money on the engineering facts, imposed by bogus law based on disproven science. The climate change protection racket.

The observations of the last two decades on tree rings, cosmogenic partickles and ice cores clearly show the range of climate change in the current interglacial as cyclic with a range of roughly 2 deg every 1Ka.   There are a number of such papers,  but the general conclusion from the data is the same. This is GISP2 from Greenland, with my markups. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1n7oivlcpylkh4/Interglacial_Temperature_Observations_BRL_CATT.jpg?dl=0

The recent temperature rise since 1870, measured directly, but poorly early on, added to the end of the GISP2 ice age cores, which become unreliable after 1850, is close to the peak of this current warming phase, already turning towards zero as its rate of rise diminishes.. The “hiatus” is simply the next turning point. maximum. Downwards. Forget the statistical guesswork that is wrong on the facts of measurement. The actual temperature now is also known to be well inside this well studied range. So why are some scientists claiming otherwise, when this is untrue on the know facts? Could it be the money?

No models are required. What we measure now is cooler than other warm peaks this interglacial, 4 degrees cooler than the last interglacial. Measured, not modelled using guesswork about how the ocean and atmosphere work.

We know from written history that the Vikings could farm Greenland. It is currently permafrost. So there is no high temperature record now this appears the coolest warm peak in the entire interglacial series of warm peaks. Its also normal in rate and scale of variability, on the observations. Proven by those observation, so the models are wrong in fact.

Wrong because they assume an unproven effect from CO2 in the Troposphere is amplified by the much stronger presumed effect of water vapour to absorb and re emit infra red radiation at characteristic frequencies, this raising the surface temperature. Another unproven guess that doesn’t actually happen when we measure it with satellites since 1979 (Prof Christy). Because that model  is wrong, again. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/potr730d8e2qo9w/Tropospheric%20models%20versus%20actual%20measurements.jpg?dl=0

In fact the way the atmosphere insulates our planet from space, as with other planets,  is as a smart gas lagging held onto the planet under pressure by gravity, This creates a thermal gradient to space that also retains solar heat in the atmosphere and thus creates a thermal gradient to space. THat raises the surface temperature above the black body temperature that would apply if there were no atmosphere through Wien’s Law. But there is. 

Sothis atmospheric lagging is not mysterious at all. We also now know this effect is similar across the solar system regardless of gas, the height the transition to warming from cooling starts wherever 0.1 Bar occurs.  So the lapse rate  to space is mainly a function of gas pressure which determines the lapse rate (gradient) any such process will naturally have. Our surface temperature is not mysterious. It’s warmer because our atmosphere insulates us, held onto the planet by the gravity which also pressurises it. Simples!

The paper linked here might be of interest. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ayvamq0h5bg7ei/Greenhouse_Effect_at_work.pdf?dl=0

So  NASA also know this. But are not shouting about it very loudly. The problem here is that the CO2 ist narrative, and all the easy money flowing in its name to fund an easy money by law snake oil cure, depends on theories created to support the political ideology designed to end energy fuelled progress – by blaming the natural CO2 combustions produces for the actually natural observed warming, and writing models to prove that theory, not to test it. 

When they wrote the models they failed, because they got it wrong and underestimated or ignored natural effects so under predicted the past,  so the cure was to turn CO2 up to 11 to make models track reality in the past. But that was wrong, and meant their predictions became hopelessly wrong …. but only in fact. As Christy and the natural record of the past have both shown.

Climate Change = AGW = CO2 theories have been proven comprehensively  wrong by observation in the last twenty years. It’s just nobody seems to see that arguing about models when we know the facts is plain stupid, the GCM models are partial and wrong in their assumptions on the facts, so FAIL the most basic test of science. The facts.

Remember the Attorney’s rule. If you have evidence use it. If you don’t have hard evidence use circumstantial evidence. If you have no evidence, attack the witness who has. That is where climate science of change by CO2 has now got to. The prosecution should be using the hard evidence, not making up its own circumstantial evidence, leave the defence to rely on attacking the character of the witness. We don’t need no stinking statistics!

I would love to give this talk somewhere. In fact I did. To the U3A though. All the fats are in it. People get it. So why don’t those who understand present this most basic science of the record versus the predictions?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wm5co3w50y2e5mb/Climate%20Science%20Fact%20and%20Fiction%20BRL%20CATT.ppsx?dl=0

THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SCAM: As for energy, intermittent renewables capture weak/diffuse and intermittent energy from weak sources that we abandoned to become developed, with wood then coal fired steam. Not enough energy in renewable sources. And they must necessarily use far more resources per unit of weak energy when available than is necessary to collect intense fossil energy on demand, that itself uses much more per unit energy than much more intense nuclear, etc. 

Renewables are a mediaeval energy source and a known , demonstrably expensive and ultimately inadequate way to create the levels of energy needed by a developed economy, because of the lack of energy sources and their unpredictable intermittency, the amount of material and land required, plus the expensive modifications to the grid required to support a very unreliable and sensitive source of electricity vis a vis steam turbines. 

INERTIA is another problem, the stabilising force of thousands of tonnes of spinning steam turbines the grid has must first slow by the drag of its load that reduces the key control of frequency under load, which historically gives time to spin up generation reserves when failures occur. Renewables don’t have inertia or robust resilience to transients, they trip after one dodgy cycle, 20mS. But that’s another story.

Blackouts! Coming soon to a grid near you. The more the renewable % of supply, the closer they get.

As well as being more expensive than fossil or nuclear 24/7 supply by virtue of their source characteristics, renewables depend on clean efficient gas generation for up to 100% backup when not working. Being all renewable is not realistic, but if it was, without fossil support, over producing what is weak, feeble and unreliable, and storing the diffuse electrical energy produced in batteries or pumped storage for when it isn’t working,  makes it roughly ten times more expensive, if a week’s storage is required, assuming a 1/3 duty cycle, using best prices and life cycles for Li-Ion or Lead acid. Easy maths, not a model.

In reality renewables depend on 100% reliable and controllable fossil on the grid, mainly clean CCGT, to push off for their subsidies when working, making the cycled CCGT which could have supplied all the energy anyway more expensive. You can’t make it up. That’s government’s job. And the UN.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3274611

As our electrical energy needs rise with development, and ultimately heat and transport need to transition to electricity as fossil reserves become more expensive,  tripling the electrical enrgy damand, ONLY nuclear energy can only replace intense fossil energy sources with its much more intense so more sustainable energy, and no CO2 – if that mattered. 

Not a cure activists like because it is a progressive solution, not sending us back to feudal Malthusian/limits to growth economic dogmas the UN and ER plan to impose that are simply not grounded in the facts we observe . The same goes for GM crops as an answer to reducing pesticides. Progressive solutions don’t match the elite’s ideology or deliver easy money to insiders, so are VERY inconvenient solutions. But very real, and the lowest cost and risk on the facts. Best for those using the energy and eating the food in fact. But offering those who would control us and slow human development no easy money and control from imposing the climate rackets by creating and exploiting fraudulent fear of a catastrophe that clearly isn’t happening in observed fact.

“If you can get though the winter on nuclear, you don’t need renewables.” I will let SirDavid MacKay explain this very fundamental physics, 10 days before he died. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/03/idea-of-renewables-powering-uk-is-an-appalling-delusion-david-mackay?CMP=share_btn_fb

As a globally respected Cambridge physicist and author on energy futures, this Cambridge Professor of physics and Chief Scientist to the UK DECC from 2008-2014 was comprehensively ignored by politicians in favour of an Eng Lit degree FoE activist, Bryony Worthington, who drafted the unachievable and economically ruinous to even attempt Climate Change Act, based entirely on what MacKay named an  “Appalling Delusion” – the absolute physics denial that the UK economy could be powered by renewables, from a physicist grounded in the hard science who had done the maths..

SUMMARY: Forget the statistics and models! Debate the reality we observe, not what we believe or what models claim when the observed reality says NO.

We should end the overtly fraudulent imposition of  very expensive technically undeliverable non-solutions to the non-problem of CO2 claimed to be causing unusual climate change that isn’t happening. This is already costing nearly 1$Trillion pa globally in the name of solving a non problem, robbing the public by law for no technically measurable benefit, either in energy supply or “Climate Change”. 

As above, we know from observation the change we observe is probably all normal and natural,  changing as we have measured in the past, certainly not significantly changed by humans in the last 50 years.

We know it is cooler now than earlier warm periods this already cool interglacial, and versus earlier interglacials. There is no unusual warming to respond to, if we could. So the calims and predictions are wrong in fact.

By the time the natural cooling phase b is clearly established, on the 30 year moving average, the snake oil salesmen like Gore and the political Malthusians at the UN will have retired clutching their easy money, and the mug public who believed the sales pitch will be wondering why they believed it and paying the price in damaged economies and personal energy poverty, which the developing countries leapfrog us, continuing to burn as much fossil fuel as it will take. China currently has 3 times more coal fired power stations than the rest of the World put together, and plans 260GW more. Not even trying to slow their development, because they need the energy to make everyone’s stuff and dominate the World as de facto leader.

WHY??HOW?: Because the lumpen conformist and innumerate public were too stupid and lazy minded to validate rather than believe, so easy to fool, and be forced by the media to conform to the herd belief of carefully contrived lies, self evidently disproven by the facts these same people could have checked. Lies  from corrupted activist scientists with larger egos than abilities trying to “save the planet” they can have no real effect upon, and greedy  renewable capitalists cynically exploiting the fraud for a fast renewable energy buck by law, laws that the politicians involved were also well rewarded for passing into law. With well paid untesting board level jobs after office, or businesses consulting on how to profit from the laws they helped create and/or pass into law. Huhne, Gummer, Hendry, Yeo are blatant examples in the UK . Legalised corruption is designed into the British political system, set up by the elite and fronted by a veneer of elected democracy with little real power and a short term of office, to legalise the corruption the rich could get away with in their own right, directly, when the poor had no rights and the aristos were above the law that applied to the common people. The rich get richer and the compliant veneer pass the laws to keep m poor poor for the profit of the elites they join after office, if not members before.

AND, to my opening point, because those who knew the truth and had a voice allowed the climate change protection racket to control the agenda by arguing about flawed models instead of the observations that proved the models wrong, for 20 years too long, instead of attacking fictional models with factual reality of what science can prove is happening and what will probably happen, using the deterministic physics of the real World. 

Definitely not by arguing statistical pseudo science.

COVID gave us a more real taste of dodgy statistical models made from guesses and presented as hard science, when they are just guesswork, that was wrong. Nut in that case the dodgy scientists couldn’t hide the bodies so easily. Epidemiology is statistics, not science. Like the climate models. . Only proven deterministic science is absolute, relatively. Like physics. 

There is only one beneficiary from the claims and laws that state that climate science = CO2 = renewable energy, which the facts disprove. Those who befit personally and fiscally from the impositions made in its name.

Follow the money. Ours, that they created these carefully constructed lies to take.

We now know the facts on both energy and climate change very well. So why do people prefer to argue about proven wrong guesses still falsely promoted as if facts? Why not argue the facts we observe?

 Brian RL Catt age 77 1/2 CEng, CPhys, MBA

Science Fact – Observed climate change is neither Unnatural nor Extreme

Work in Progress. Please do check the facts I present using public reference sources and suggest corrections of fact or provable science. I do make statements of fact but without references, graphs usually have their source marked. This not a scientific paper, but is derived directly from them.

The whole basis of those asserting a climate emergency is the assertion that human influence, mainly by CO2 emissions from energy generation for transport, electricity generation, heating and industry is causing unnatural and extreme long term climate change, that will become irreversible. Hence all these things must be stopped, and a return to “renewable” energy that powered feudal society, together with human and animal labour enforced, that will thus stop the claimed problem by reversing the use of energy in society. I propose to deal with these statements one at a time. First the primary justification, the science of what is actually observable, or has been observed. Is this claimed problem real?

1. Current Climate Change vs. Interglacial Records

Above is the well known GISP2 ice core data for the current short and warm interglacial period between the much longer glacial phases of our current 100,ooo year (100Ka) series of ice ages. These end at 1850 as the data is considered less reliable after that, due to the method of dating the proxy data from the ice cores. To the 1850 number I have added the 0.84 Deg of warming that is agreed to be the global amount since then, based on a 30 year average. How global climate is measured.

nb: Note that this should really be more, as the global anomaly is also an average, more at the Poles than the equator.

Also regional annual variations are much larger, 40 degrees pa is normal in zones, and annual temperatures go down in some parts of the world and up in others. Your weather is not our global climate. The first thing that is self evident from the record is the the average temperature varies regularly, on a cycle of about c.1,ooo year, with a range of c.2 degrees. This is ipso fact natural and not part of any AGW. Next, we are very likely to be at the end of a natural warming phase of a cycle at around the maximum, following the last peak warming of the Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) around 1,000AD, at a similar temperature level. Both these peaks are well below earlier warm period peaks.

Recent academic studies of the MWP suggest it was actually warmer than now, and also the rate of warming was faster. Historic accounts of farming on Greenland mean this reality was observed and recorded by the inhabitants of affected areas.The human record of the farming activity and archeological support for the farming of Greenland in the MWP makes the error in the recent 0.84 deg estimate from the ad NASA adjusted data more likely to be wrong, not the observations of Vikings or archeologists.

WYSIWYG

This is a test piece, WordPress is the worst page design package I have used since Ventura Publisher kicked this off in the 80’s. Barely usable, utterly opaque. There is a massive opportunity to create a website design package usable by people who can navigate DWP software and following the metaphors of Mac and PC Desktop UI’s, instead of the barely comprehensible WordPress.

The acronym above is also the key to scientific reality. If the observations don’t support the scientific assertions AKA theories, then the theory is wrong. And all the people who support the consensus are wrong.

The tendency in 21st Century sciences, populated with ever less able middle class “scientists” keen to avoid the world of real work where you measurable success determines your job security, is to publish socially friendly theories you want to people to believe, creating supporting pseudo science using totally or partially fabricated models whose data, or even a lack of it, is forced by arbitrary adjustments to prove the theory the creators are receiving a grant to support. This is easily done using statistical methods to distort the data to prove the lie, as Mann’s Hokey Stick methods famously did. Climate science is such a science. Statistical models the tool.

It’s science Captain, but not as we know it. And the observational data disproves it, yet it continues, zombie science like, as if real and proven. This is not”the science”. It’s a deliberate deceit to attack the fundamental underpinning of modern civilisation by extremists, the use of cheap plentiful energy that empowers modern civilisation.

The idea of proving an activist’s theory wrong, the very essence of deterministic scientific proof, never enters their heads, because that is not what they are paid for. It’s much easier to just say what you believe is proven, because the model says so, so it must be, rather than check all the ways it could be wrong. Especially not with actual observations.

The scientific act of validation itself is seen as a denial of the belief systems of these so called “scientists”, an attack on the beliefs of their institutions and peer groups. So their science has little to do with provable deterministic science, and is mostly to do with creating pseudo science beliefs for profit. 21st Century consensual science, created using statistics to manipulate data to prove whar the grant is for, imposed by threats on the working commuity, and unable to prove itself, which is why it can only ever be a consensus, because, as Feynman observed, “you cannot prove a vague theory wrong”.

Verified by MonsterInsights