The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIsrael Shamir Archive
Soul-Searching Science
An interview with Prof Roman Zubarev
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I love scientists but they will kill us all, said Jon Stewart on The Late Show with Steven Colbert . Science eased our suffering due to a pandemic that was most likely caused by science, he told the audience. (Here you can find an acerbic response to the show on the Unz Review) Is it true? Do science and the scientists save us or kill us? How far can we trust them? It has become a relevant question for now they are not satisfied to stay in their labs but rather aspire to govern us as Anthony Fauci and his ilk do.

This aspiration emerges from an Open Letter by Nobel Prize laureates and other dignitaries who demand that we cede to them the planetary stewardship the Church had, or claimed to have in the Middle Ages. Such a mind-boggling pronouncement passed without attracting much attention; this says more about the mass media than about the magnitude of the event itself. After all, since the 11th century, nobody has yet claimed to guide the whole of mankind.

The letter, called “Our Planet, Our Future: An Urgent Call for Action,” claims that Science is the new Church of mankind, benevolent and wise. “Science is a global common good on a quest for truth, knowledge, and innovation toward a better life. [We want] to promote a transformation to global sustainability for human prosperity and equity. Global greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut by half and destruction of nature halted and reversed.” They claim Covid-19 is a “zoonotic disease”, carried by bats and pangolins – the letter was published in the end of April, just before the miraculous U-turn of the scientific consensus on this point. The scientists propose seven principles of governing our lives, and some of them are very far-reaching. Should we accept their recommendations?

To discuss this, I went to one of the leading contemporary scientists, Prof. Roman Zubarev. He is a daring and outspoken man who is not afraid of speaking his mind – a rare quality amongst this rather shy multitude! Roman Zubarev heads a laboratory in the Karolinska Institute, arguably the best scientific institution in Sweden which has been heavily involved with the selection and nomination of Nobel Prize winners. In an impressive first, he formed a living cell from dead matter. He discovered Isotopic Resonance, a phenomenon related to the creation of life.

• • •

ISH: Recently Nobel Prize laureates got together and published “An Urgent Call For Action” to mankind, in the name of science. It seems they want to form a world government, an age-old dream of various visionaries all the way from HG Wells and Shaw up to Schwab and Gates. What do the scientists actually suggest, and should we, mankind, heed their call?

RZ: I was simultaneously puzzled, disturbed, elated and provoked by that call. Usually, when a Nobel Prize winner speaks, it is worth paying attention. Here, a whole company of Nobel laureates and other esteemed experts has crafted a Letter. I have read it multiple times, trying to understand the deeper meaning, hidden underneath what appears to be virtue signaling – calls for all things good and against all things bad. But I wouldn’t think of criticizing them if not for the long-standing tradition of peer review in research. The scientists that crafted and signed the Letter must be well accustomed to relentless critical analysis of their writings by often – but not always – anonymous reviewers. Thus I thought it best to treat the Letter as if it was a research manuscript submitted for publication.

ISH: And what is your verdict?

RZ: The Letter presents a very uneven landscape of some deep thoughts and some apparently rather shallow suggestions.

One particularly striking thought is spread thinly across the Letter. I had to pick up one relevant sentence here and another one there to assemble a complete and coherent message. Here it is: Our world is in danger due to two factors – degrading environment and inequality, and without solving the latter one can’t solve the first.

They talk about global transformation and say that an essential foundation for this transformation is to address destabilizing inequalities in the world. They also quote Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Memorial prize laureate of 2001, who said The only sustainable prosperity is shared prosperity. Of course, Karl Marx has said essentially the same 150 years earlier.

It appears that now the world’s top scientists are calling for a global revolution as Marx did in his time. That appears to be the most logical conclusion one can arrive at after a careful reading of the Letter.

First the Authors admit, to their great credit, that science is not a solution to the world’s greatest problem but rather an essential component of that problem. They say: On aggregate, technological advancements so far have accelerated us down the path toward destabilizing the planet. They also say that scientific progress has led to greater levels of urbanization, and urbanization is exacerbating existing, and creating new, inequities.

Furthermore, to their additional credit they implicitly blame capitalism as a socio-economic system: While all in societies contribute to economic growth, the wealthy in most societies disproportionately take the largest share of this growing wealth. This trend has become more pronounced in recent decades.

When you distill the message, it is pretty clear – if we don’t want to lose the planet, we need to fix it within this decade, and to do that we need to change the global socio-economic system. No amount of scientific advances can be a substitute for such a change, as in capitalism technological achievements can only exacerbate inequality. That’s pretty revolutionary!

ISH: What do they suggest in practical terms?

RZ: Not much. It appears that, as scientists, they are more interested in diagnosing the problem and outlining a generalized solution rather than giving realistic advice.

ORDER IT NOW

In a practical sense there is a mixed bag of seven suggestions. The one in Policy is most closely related to the socio-economic system. However, it sounds strange and weak: to complement the current metric of economic success, gross domestic product (GDP), with some kind of measures of true well-being of people and nature.

I am not an economist and maybe this is a great suggestion. But to me it sounds similar to a proposal of merging the US dollar with “likes” in order to create a new world reserve currency. As far as I know, GDP is just a number used in economic reports, and it has little bearing on real-life economic processes, not to mention the structure of the socio-economic system. There are already a number of socio-economic indexes ranking the countries, and it’s unclear why more indexes would solve the inequality problem.

One suggestion in Finance & Business also sounds a bit weak: businesses must recycle more. But then they suggest that economic, environmental, and social externalities should be fairly priced. I remember Brezhnev’s demand, much ridiculed in the former USSR years past his demise in 1982, that “the economy should be economical”. But unlike Brezhnev’s toothless declaration, this one quickly grew teeth in form of the recent EU carbon tax. Unfortunately, these teeth seem to be biting the third-world hand that feeds them.

There are still some other good suggestions. In Education, the Letter calls for teaching in universities of planetary stewardship. That’s nice! I hope that the curriculum includes Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky’s Biosphere published almost a century ago in 1926. It’s about time we thought of our planet as a single system that doesn’t recognize artificial country borders. Of course one has to be careful so as not to create a monstrous and oppressive world government. With countries’ diversity, dissidents can still find refuge somewhere – we can’t risk losing this.

Another good suggestion is found in Business: we must develop new business models for the free sharing of all scientific knowledge. I couldn’t agree more! Due to the existing copyright situation, university libraries are forced to pay exorbitantly for getting access to the publications that we scientists write and review for free. Researchers that don’t have the privilege of access to well-funded university libraries are asked to pay several dozen dollars to read a single paper that may be just a few pages long.

This is now changing, but the main battle for setting information free is still in the future. A few existing but relentlessly hounded “pirate” web sites offering free downloads of scientific literature have arguably done more to promote science in the less developed world than major Western universities.

The rest of the suggestions in the Letter seem to be full of contradictions and misconceptions. Mission-Driven Innovation, for example, calls for large-scale collaboration between researchers, government, and business, while the Letter admits elsewhere that 100 years of such collaboration has resulted in exacerbation of world’s worst problems.

In Information Technology the suggestion that Societies must urgently act to counter the industrialization of misinformation sounds dangerously close to a call for global censorship of social media. Such a thought should be foreign to any scientist truly adherent to Magna Charta Universitatum’s principle that freedom in research and training is fundamental for university life.

Equally puzzling is the call in Education to teach only scientific consensus. The Authors and Signees must know better than anybody else that scientific consensus is mostly used in science for the so-called “null hypothesis” which must be proven false by every new scientific discovery. And since education and research according to Magna Charta are inseparable, teaching only ‘scientific consensus’ means researching mostly within the null hypothesis. If implemented, this suggestion would likely result in the death of the modern science as we know it and in resurrection of the zombie corpse of scholasticism.

History is often cruel enough to let doctors taste the bitter medicine they prescribe. It’s an old story: two thousand years ago, Li Si institutionalized “five pains” punishments, and was himself subjected to them in due time. Those who cry for the political persecution of dissidents get persecuted themselves; just look at Trotsky. Those who advocate censorship will get censored themselves – the examples are too many to cite. Apparently Nobel prizes are not given for the knowledge of history.

And the history payback can materialize pretty fast. On the official signature date of the Letter, April 29, the ‘scientific consensus’ was that SARS-Cov2 was a natural virus, and the Letter dutifully blamed the Covid-19 pandemic on the destruction of natural habitats, highly networked societies, and misinformation (!). Now the growing consensus among independently-minded scientists and the general public alike is that the virus is a lab creation. Does this emerging consensus mean that the Letter spreads misinformation and has to be banned from social media? A rhetorical question, of course.

ISH: What else caught your attention?

RZ: The meandering strength of the scientific arguments that our world is doomed unless… The Letter talks about the survival of all life on this planet, a pretty high stake, and yet all we can say for sure is that we are 1.2°C above the pre-industrial (1850-1900) level. This doesn’t sound too much, especially knowing that half of that value had already been achieved in 1940s, when the CO2 emissions due to human activity were much smaller.

Even the statement that we are experiencing the warmest temperature on Earth since the last ice age some 20,000 years ago doesn’t sound too dangerous – at that time, trees grew above the Arctic Circle.

The Letter also says that we are losing the Earth’s resilience, but environmental resilience is hard to overestimate: in Northern Siberia, for example, average temperatures fluctuated between 46,000 to 12,000 years ago by some 20°C, and yet the living environment remained stable.

The Letter also says that there is a danger of >3°C warming in 80 years, which hasn’t happened for at least 3 million years. But even assuming that this projection is more accurate that the previous failed catastrophe predictions, 50 million years ago the Earth was much warmer than that. Palms growing in the Arctic region and in Antarctica are hardly consistent with the projected death of all life on the planet.

ORDER IT NOW

I am not against the notion that the global climate is changing, and it is a plausible hypothesis that human activity is contributing to it. But what worries me is that, when talking about climate change, the Letter doesn’t mention the positive effects of global warming, such as the land productivity increase in the vast northern part of the Northern hemisphere. In general, there seems to have been a shortage of competent ‘pro’ and ‘con’ climate change discussions recently. Hand-waving arguments without reliable and testable computer modeling are not instilling confidence. Disturbingly, discussions of the positive effects of global warming are being banned today in mainstream media.

And even if a thorough analysis will show that the ‘cons ‘prevail, and that human-induced global climate change is bad for humanity, the cure may still be worse than the disease. The Letter says that Global emissions of greenhouse gases need to be cut by half in the decade of 2021-2030. Compare this with the global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic – in 2020 carbon emissions from energy use fell by 6.3%, but the world’s GDP shrunk almost equally, by 5.2%. What impact on the global economy will a 50% reduction in fossil fuel production and consumption have, in view of the economic need for reliable energy sources? The intermittent “renewables” are already maxed out almost everywhere in the developed world, and not much more can be added without making the energy supply unreliable. We have already pushed this green sustainable energy envelope pretty hard, and if the new generation of environmental zealots knows something that the previous one didn’t, they should share this knowledge with the world.

Perhaps it would be more honest to admit that we are experiencing Peak oil, and no matter what we do now and how much a barrel of oil is going to cost, the production of marketable oil will inevitably go down. That has already happened once with conventional oil in the middle of 2000s, but then the American cavalry came to world’s rescue, untapping the shale oil potential. That solution worked for a while, but turned out to be just a temporary fix. Now oil production decline seems inevitable, and according to some projections, it could reach 50% by 2030. If this happens, the Authors’ wishes as well as the EU’s plans to cut carbon emissions by 55% compared with 1990 will be fulfilled automatically.

Or they may not be, because these days one needs to burn a lot of oil to produce some commercial oil. And in the past with Peak oil one needs to burn more and more oil to produce less and less marketable oil. And all that burned oil converts to CO2. That’s probably why such an (ostensibly) ‘environmentally conscious’ country as Canada, instead of decreasing its level CO2 emissions, has increased it by 3% between 2016 and 2019, and since 1990 the increase is over 21%.

Thus it stands to reason that past Peak oil fossil energy production declines may be accompanied with a simultaneous increase in overall CO2 emissions. Worse yet, the artificial reduction of oil consumption is intended to keep oil prices down, but when the cost of extracting a barrel of oil exceeds the market value of that barrel of oil, extraction simply stops. And with that world production of most other goods, including food, will also halt. We will then be reduced to using draft animals for farming and what in some places was euphemistically called nightsoil for fertilizer. That, and not global warming, is the truly nightmarish scenario.

But whether global warming is used as a cover for running out of economic oil or not, the decarbonization problem may just be too complicated to be reliably modeled today. The Letter admits that No one knows for sure what will work. If this is the case, the environmental zealots can only be blamed for over-selling their unreliable projections rather than purposefully wrecking the world economy.

The abrupt drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption, no matter whether it is caused by the physical absence of oil or political prohibition of its usage, will almost certainly wreak havoc on the world’s economy. The EU hopes to insulate itself from that havoc by investing 1.8 trillion Euro into the implementation of its 55% CO2 reduction scheme and related measures. Simultaneously, the already mentioned carbon tariffs are being introduced (carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM). They are ostensibly aimed at leveling the playing field but in reality they are hurting many developing countries, such as Mozambique, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Cameroon, Zimbabwe, etc. How does this damage to the third world square with the aim of reducing global inequality? Not much, but some peoples must foot the bill for the Western environmentalists’ dreams, and they appear to be those of the poor countries.

Since the Letter warned that climate change [is] expected to worsen inequality, and inequality is declared to be the root problem, EU actions should make the Authors and Signees furious. How could the EU act on global climate without addressing first the inequality problem, and in fact, risk increasing the global inequality?

The Letter calls for planetary stewardship by the 193 nations that have adopted the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Have all these nations, or at least their majority, approved the EU’s CBAM carbon taxation? If not (and I sincerely doubt they did), there seems to be a major violation of the Letter’s call for collective decision-making.

This could be a litmus test for the Letter’s sincerity. If the Authors and Signees raise their voice scolding the EU for putting the cart before the horse, they will deserve kudos. But if they remain silent or endorse the EU’s course of action – the Letter can be dismissed as mere virtue signaling.

Given the Authors and Signee’s credentials, that would be a big disappointment. But one could probably be forgiven for not holding one’s breath awaiting a satisfying outcome. After all, there are signs in the Letter that the Authors themselves don’t take it very seriously. For instance, the ending is anticlimactic: The long-term potential of humanity depends upon our ability today to value our common future. Ultimately, this means valuing the resilience of societies and the resilience of Earth’s biosphere.

Wait a second! One thought the aim of the Letter was to create a sense of urgency as life’s very survival on Earth was in danger. Instead, one got this?. The danger to our long-term potential is not much of a concern today for most people because first, it’s long term, and second, it’s just potential.

ORDER IT NOW

Also, what does it mean – valuing someone’s resilience? Doesn’t it mean – relying on their ability to cope with current challenges? Thus, if we are valuing the resilience of societies and the resilience of Earth’s biosphere, we should just stand down, respectfully relying on their ability to fix the emerging problems on their own. I am confused, but so appear to be the Letter’s authors.

ISH: Rounding up your words, we may conclude: Science is not made to guide people. Science has no morals, no ethics, no feeling of right or wrong. It is a tool, like a tractor. An excellent powerful tractor, but still a tractor. It’s men who decide how to employ tractor – or how to use science. A tractor wouldn’t tell you what to do; neither will Science. Science is not a church, it is not supposed to guide people; people should guide science. People understand what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong. Science does not. Whoever speaks in the name of Science is an impostor, like a priest speaking in the name of an idol. With one difference: God can speak to people, maybe, sometimes. Science can’t talk. It has no voice or mind. But this scientist, Prof. Zubarev, has a voice and a mind and we shall turn to him again to discuss Covid-19 and other important themes.

Roman Zubarev was trained (M.Sc.) in Engineering Physics at the Moscow Institute for Engineering Physics, USSR, and received PhD in Ion Physics from the Uppsala University, Sweden, in 1997. After postdoc training with Fred W. McLafferty in Cornell University, USA, he became associate professor of biological mass spectrometry at the Chemistry Department in Odense University, Denmark. In 2002 Dr. Zubarev came back to Uppsala as professor of proteomics. In 2009 he has moved to Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, taking a professorship in medicinal proteomics. Among his scientific achievements, Dr. Zubarev has pioneered electron capture dissociation and related fragmentation techniques, has formulated and verified the Isotopic resonance hypothesis, and developed novel methods of Chemical proteomics. For his contribution to mass spectrometry he has been awarded by the Carl Brunnee award (IMSC, 2006), Biemann medal (ASMS, 2007) and a Gold medal (Russian MS Society, 2013). Dr. Zubarev has published more than 350 peer-reviewed papers, and has several patents

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Academia, Global Warming, Political Correctness 
Hide 144 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rational says:

    JUDAISTS GRAB SO MANY NOBLE PRIZES THE OLD FASHIONED WAY—THEY STEAL THEM!

    Thanks, Sir. Interesting article. The insane stuff these nobel laureates write shows that they are just liberal scum too.

    One big reason is that Judaists have been stealing a lot of noble prizes. Though they are 0.2% of the world population, they get 20% of the nobel prizes.

    It appears they have been able to corrupt the nobel committee.

    Eg. Paul Krugman got a “noble prize” in economics for “discovering” that countries that have too much of one thing (say, tomatoes) can export them and import other things (like cotton) that they do not have enough of. All the farmers and even kids have known this for millennia. Many Jewish winners have not done anything great and many scientists in their field have never even heard of them.

    Many articles about Jewish theft of Nobel prizes have been taken offline and do not appear in search results, as the Judaists are afraid this scam will be exposed too.

    But here is one link to Dr. Jan Biro’s article on how the nobel committee is prejudiced in favor of Judaists:

    http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/The%20Jewish%20Bias%20of%20the%20Nobel%20Prize.pdf

    I hope you all consider saving this download, as the Judaists may make it disappear too.

    If Judaists are so smart, how come Israel’s average IQ is below US and Israel is a failed state, living on stolen land, and off of stolen money, stolen from USA and Europe?

  2. “Science” is probably all well and good, as “Science” is a but vague abstraction. In other words, it doesn’t exist. “Science” is not real.

    Go ahead and try. Point at a “Science.” You will find you can’t. There are no “Science”s a-tall out there, “science”s that you can chase, dog, wrastle, lassoo, and brand. “Science” is just a vague, unclear, foggy, ambiguous,ill-defined, generalized idea. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    On the other hand, there are plenty of scien-tists floating around out there that you can point to, name, and sense with all your functioning sensory organs. Thus, scien-tists are concrete. Real. They are people. And people, I hate to tell ya, tend to be a smidgeon flawed. (Not to mention corrupt)

    Moreover, there are plenty of science experiments that these scien-tists perform, experiments that you can point to, name, and sense with all your functioning sensory organs. Thus, scientific experiments are concrete. Real. They are activities involving the manipulation of concrete things. And human activities, needless to say, tend to be prone to, shall we say, uh, bungling? (Not to mention corruption)

    Now, “Science” may be perfect, existing only in your head as it do.

    But scien-tists, and scientific experiments? To employ litotes–not so much.

    • Replies: @Rabbitnexus
    , @Drew
  3. People understand what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong.

    yes, if only they were told the truth and would incline their ears and take heed . but in reality, hollywood deceives us, msm brainwashes, school system lies, too many pastors are charlatans out to make money, and the govt enables all these while keeping us in line. all of this is inevitable in the end times as foretold in the Holy Scriptures. maybe there is not much one can do except pray and hope for Divine intervention.
    “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” Luke 18:8

    • Replies: @monopduly
    , @Stan d Mute
  4. Too many things are called ‘science’ today.

    We have the outright frauds in the ‘Social Sciences’.

    We have what used to be real science that has lost its way over the last 100 years like cosmology that refuses to let go of a failed paradigm and keeps making corrections to a stupid idea known as Big Bang.

    Next comes nascent science like climate science that knows so little as to be near useless in predicting anything but speaks loudly and boldly proclaiming they have absolute knowledge when their own models show they know next to nothing.

    We have the medical profession that can’t cure most ailments coupled with big pharma to hand out pills to alleviate symptoms and we’re supposed to regard them highly; I don’t. Without the engineers and real scientists that invented the machines they use, they’d still be recommending blood letting as a cure all.

    But then we come to practical science known as engineering that makes the entire world we all live in and can prove their worth. Most people haven’t the necessary education and experience to sniff out bogus science. Engineers do have the training and they are a practical lot with the ability to gauge what’s promising and what’s just too far off to be considered reliable at present. That’s why China is in the lead. They listen to engineers.

  5. SteveK9 says:

    We don’t have Science as a new Religion, we have a new Religion taking control of Science, Climate Catastrophism. Science is objective and rational, Scientists and in particular Science Bureaucrats / Managers are not.

    The other takeover of Science is an old one … money. Big Pharma money has completely corrupted Medicine, to the point where you are almost better off not participating in a great deal of modern Medicine, particularly on the drug side.

    • Agree: Realist
  6. Proximaking says: • Website
    @Rational

    I remember reading something about the number of Victoria Crosses won by old boys of the big private schools in the UK. It turned out the number of VCs each school’s old boys won was in direct proportion to the number of people from that school who were on the VC committees at any time. They were simply awarding the awards to themselves.

    I think something similar happens with these Nobel prizes. I was astounded to find many many Jewish physics Nobel prize winners had a little tree chart showing how their prizes were all linked to other Jewish prize winners all going back to the Michaelson (Jewish) and Morley experiment. Take out that one single original experiment and all of their Nobel prizes collapse like a pack of cards and of course we find Dayton Miller and Morley himself saying a few years later that yes indeed the experiment was flawed and did not prove there was no aether. As Einstein himself said on the link here … http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

    “My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.”
    — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

    The fact is since the Michelson Morley experiment was allowed to be declared a null result physics and progress of society has ended and it won’t restart until this is admitted to by the usual suspects who will clearly be seen to have awarded one another totally undeserved Nobel prizes as one lying piece of “physics” was built upon another. As someone said build your house on my words for they shall never fade away rather than building your house on sand that will wash away in the rain.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @R2b
    , @anon
    , @anonymous
  7. Realist says:

    Those that preach science for money, power and esteem are not scientists. A true scientist seeks knowledge and discovery for the sheer joy of understanding a little more of the universe we live in.

    Scientists utilize science to seek knowledge and truth…religion and politics utilize dogma to seek control.

    • Replies: @Fr. John
  8. Realist says:
    @Proximaking

    I think something similar happens with these Nobel prizes. I was astounded to find many many Jewish physics Nobel prize winners had a little tree chart showing how their prizes were all linked to other Jewish prize winners all going back to the Michaelson (Jewish) and Morley experiment.

    How about a citation?

    Science always builds on past scientific discoveries.

    While it is true that there are a number of Jews that use their intelligence for nefarious purposes, I truly believe that Jewish physicists are not among them.

  9. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    We have what used to be real science that has lost its way over the last 100 years like cosmology that refuses to let go of a failed paradigm and keeps making corrections to a stupid idea known as Big Bang.

    Why failed? Why stupid? What is your theory of the beginning of the universe?

    The beauty of science is that all theories are open to amendment or abandonment.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @Joe Levantine
  10. @Realist

    Modern cosmology is concerned only with gravity. It completely ignores electromagnetism which is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. Plasma rules the universe, not gravity.

    Big Bang was invented by a Belgian priest / astronomer, Georges Lemaître, to marry his religious views to his scientific interest with no evidence. Hubble came along and decided that redshift shows a receding universe and cosmologists worked things backwards to come up with a start of the universe some 13 billion years ago; a point source.

    The fact that Hubble’s protege, Halton Arp showed that redshift is quantised and also showed via optical and radio observations that luminous bridges existed between galaxies and quasars with wildly different Z values was ignored. NASA even went so far as to airbrush out the luminous bridges in some of their images.

    Cosmologists have had to invent dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, rotating pulsars, black holes and all manner of other unicorns to try to keep Big Bang alive as more and more evidence comes to light that Big Bang is illusory.

    When redshift was shown via empirical evidence that it is not a proxy for distance, that should have ended Big Bang bullshit, but too many people were invested in it to let it die.

    Why the Big Bang is wrong:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK6zHysxoCo The second half of this video goes into plasma, and is also very good.

    Plasma Cosmology that debunks dark matter, etc

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
    • Thanks: Stan d Mute
  11. Josh Kenn says:
    @RoatanBill

    I agree the red shift should not be accepted as proof of anything. It is just as likely a result of mass, and even those cosmologists and their wild imaginations are starting to realize that the implications of the “Higgs Bosun” are much different if they toss out their unproven assumptions that they don’t even recognize as dogmatic.

    • Replies: @Realist
  12. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    Modern cosmology is concerned only with gravity. It completely ignores electromagnetism which is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity.

    Not all cosmologists are only concerned with gravity. You included a video that says otherwise.

    Plasma rules the universe, not gravity.

    What is your postulate for plasma replacing gravity?

    Big Bang was invented by a Belgian priest / astronomer, Georges Lemaître, to marry his religious views to his scientific interest with no evidence.

    Perhaps.

    To what do you attribute the microwave background radiation? What theory do you believe describes the beginning of the universe? Or do you think the universe has always been here and it is static?

    Cosmologists have had to invent dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, rotating pulsars, black holes and all manner of other unicorns to try to keep Big Bang alive as more and more evidence comes to light that Big Bang is illusory.

    I agree that dark energy and dark matter are extremely suspect. They are fudge factors to explain anomalies in gravitational calculations. Which I think are caused by a lack of complete understanding of gravity. To me, other silly theories are the multi-verse and string theory.
    But why include, neutron stars, rotating pulsars, and black holes? The Big Bang theory does not require those phenomena.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  13. Realist says:
    @Josh Kenn

    It is just as likely a result of mass,..

    By result of mass I take it you mean gravity?

    and even those cosmologists and their wild imaginations are starting to realize that the implications of the “Higgs Bosun” are much different if they toss out their unproven assumptions that they don’t even recognize as dogmatic.

    But as I said in a previous post The beauty of science is that all theories are open to amendment or abandonment.

    • Replies: @frontier
    , @Stan d Mute
  14. @Realist

    Not all cosmologists are only concerned with gravity.

    Cosmology as taught in schools concerns itself with gravity and gravitational effects ignoring plasma. I never mentioned all cosmologists.

    What is your postulate for plasma replacing gravity?

    I never claimed replacing gravity. I claim that ignoring EM and specifically plasma makes cosmology blind to the most powerful force observable in the universe. They can’t even admit that what is clearly visible with various technologies is the signature of plasma physics.

    The CMBR is outright bullshit. They have no way of knowing that the radiation they receive comes from where they say it does. Industrial microwave ovens exist. If I put a microwave detector inside the oven, it will record the radiation bouncing around the inside of the cavity. Pointing a microwave horn at the sky doesn’t tell you it’s coming from the source perpendicular to the horns entrance. It could be earthly radiation bouncing into the horn.

    I have no idea how or when the universe started, and neither does anyone else. There’s nothing but useless speculation on that topic. It’s unknowable.

    Big Bang and the expanding universe as shown by redshift relies on gravity as it’s explanation. Gravity is then used to invent black holes, neutron stars, etc. Plasma physics has alternative explanations that are generally ignored even though they are simpler in their explanations and don’t require the invention of things no one has ever seen or detected.

    • Replies: @Realist
  15. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    I never mentioned all cosmologists.

    Your comment was Modern cosmology is concerned only with gravity. That is an all-inclusive statement.

    I never claimed replacing gravity.

    Okay it sure as hell appears so.

    I claim that ignoring EM and specifically plasma makes cosmology blind to the most powerful force observable in the universe.

    But again you are being too all-inclusive. Not all cosmologists are blind to plasma as your video shows.

    The CMBR is outright bullshit. They have no way of knowing that the radiation they receive comes from where they say it does. Industrial microwave ovens exist. If I put a microwave detector inside the oven, it will record the radiation bouncing around the inside of the cavity. Pointing a microwave horn at the sky doesn’t tell you it’s coming from the source perpendicular to the horns entrance. It could be earthly radiation bouncing into the horn.

    It was determined that the radiation was coming from all directions and the microwave frequency is unique.

    Big Bang and the expanding universe as shown by redshift relies on gravity as it’s explanation.

    Actually, the expansion of the universe does not require gravity. Gravity attenuates any expansion of the universe.

    Gravity is then used to invent black holes, neutron stars, etc.

    It appears you are denying gravity exists.

    Plasma physics has alternative explanations that are generally ignored even though they are simpler in their explanations and don’t require the invention of things no one has ever seen or detected.

    Gravity waves have been detected…or do you think what was detected was something other than gravity waves?

    Explain how plasma keeps objects on earth…the planets revolving around the sun…stars contained within a galaxy?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  16. Tvic says:

    Regarding Prof. Roman Zubarev, that “In an impressive first, he formed a living cell from dead matter”
    That is just not true. No one has ever been able to create a living cell from dead matter.

  17. @Realist

    You remind me of a lawyer trying to make a case by inventing things that weren’t said.

    Gravity attenuates any expansion of the universe.

    And therefore the expansion of the universe relies on gravity as part of the conventional view.

    I’m not denying gravity. I’m saying it is a minuscule force on the cosmological scale.

    • Replies: @MarkU
    , @Realist
  18. anon[148] • Disclaimer says:

    Very interesting and relevant. However, arguing over the minutiae of globalist rationalizations is guaranteed to end up in a quagmire of disputing globalist experts, and not by accident. Like with JFK and 911, the best way to defuse an investigation is to inject it with a plethora of competing conspiracy theories. Excuses are irrelevant, especially when they come from known liars. The important thing is the strategy, and how (or if) to counteract it. I don’t care *why* they claim we need to take action, I want to know what they intend to do about it. The point about Problem-Reaction-Solution is to jump to the Solution and figure out if you want to oppose it.

    “The thing that really is trying to tyrannize through government is Science. The thing that really does use the secular arm is Science. And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statutes, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen — that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics. Materialism is really our established Church; for the Government will really help it to persecute its heretics. Vaccination, in its hundred years of experiment, has been disputed almost as much as baptism in its approximate two thousand. But it seems quite natural to our politicians to enforce vaccination; and it would seem to them madness to enforce baptism.” — G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils

    Global elites really do intend to remake the world into something more economically equitable. They have always based their methods on fake news and orchestrated conflict. They are currently raising up the poor nations and forcing the rich nations to bow down. The reasons they give for creating this state of affairs are irrelevant and specious.

    The ruling elite have no intention of releasing their grip on the levers of world power. They continue to increase the gap between the one percent and the masses, even as they erase the gap between wealthy nations and poor nations. Their goal is a tiny international elite ruling the world. Reducing our numbers, at least temporarily throughout this transition, will just make this goal easier for them to complete.

    This ruling elite will continue their efforts to improve the human herd with scientific eugenics. This is the true purpose behind the massive effort to manage people with licensed medical personnel. “Vaccines” and other injected concoctions will be routinely administered to all ethnic communities, each class receiving a custom formula, and only Big Pharma will know what is really inside the batches. They think they can “evolve” us, and the only scientific method to achieve this is through injected genetic material.

    The global dictatorship will be disguised with layers upon layers of politics and security theater. Applied science will be carefully regulated. The natural sciences will be heavily obfuscated to minimize the possibility of citizen scientific breakthroughs. Social science, on the other hand, will be encouraged, and we will all become willing participants in vast psychological projects like Facebook.

    “Somewhere along in here there was also something about accelerating the onset of puberty. And this was said in connection with health, and later in connection with education, and connecting to accelerating the process of evolutionary change. There was a statement that ‘we think that we can push evolution faster and in the direction we want it to go’.” — Dr. Lawrence Dunegan recounting a 1969 talk by Dr. Richard Day

    “Wanna know why they stopped spraying kids with DDT? It’s because someone questioned the “settled science.””

  19. MarkU says:
    @RoatanBill

    You are wrong, gravity is by far the strongest force on the cosmological scale.

    There are four fundamental forces, the strong and the weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force and gravity.

    The strong and the weak nuclear forces while quite strong only act over a very short range, on the cosmological scale they are negligible.

    The electromagnetic force and gravity both have infinite range. The electromagnetic force is actually the stronger of the two but the electromagnetic force has both positive and negative charges and the two tend to cancel each other out. Although gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces, it has infinite range and there is no such thing as negative mass (even antimatter has positive mass) This means that gravity is always additive and that is why gravity is the dominant force on the cosmological scale.

    It seems pointless to provide links to back up this entirely mainstream account of the subject because you clearly have no interest in or respect for the standard models of physics or cosmology. Anyone who is interested will be able to find what they need with a straightforward google search.

  20. @MarkU

    You are wrong, electromagnetism is by far the strongest force on the cosmological scale. It is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

    You probably didn’t view the videos because your mind is made up. As an EE, I’ve spent the last almost 20 years on this topic and am convinced that plasma physics has the right model for cosmology. I’m backed up by the IEEE, the largest engineering society in the world and they agree with me.

  21. ValMonde says:

    [Prof. Roman Zubarev] formed a living cell from dead matter

    I love your articles, Shamir, but statements like that are utterly ridiculous. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE has made a living cell from inorganic matter. Unless by “cell” you mean the iCHELLs, which is as far from an actual cell as a rubber tire is from a car.

    • Replies: @israel shamir
  22. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    You remind me of a lawyer trying to make a case by inventing things that weren’t said.

    I am just taking your statements at face value.

    And therefore the expansion of the universe relies on gravity as part of the conventional view.

    As I said only in the attenuation of expansion.

    I’m not denying gravity. I’m saying it is a minuscule force on the cosmological scale.

    Gravity is the weakest of the forces in general, but it is the dominant one at cosmological scales because it has the longest range and because there is no negative mass.

    You did not attempt to answer any of my questions.

  23. Realist says:
    @MarkU

    You are wrong, gravity is by far the strongest force on the cosmological scale.

    Absolutely correct. Your description of the four forces is spot on and easy for the layman to understand. This is physics 101. Thanks.

  24. I’m going to give you a hint. You can do your own research.

    When a plasma state is reached, there’s charge separation in plasma sheets.

  25. Two religions – humanism and scientism – have reared their ugly heads. And then the bioethicist weighs in with, “And their nexus shall be probabilism, since in the absence of certainty, probability will do!”

    This explains the perceived necessity for the rise of the data collectors… for want of something measurable, quantifiable. Which can predict human behavior, in the manner of the seasoned psychometrician whose principal concern is to analyze those data dots… so as to fashion arresting computer models… using statistics.

    (Bill Gates admittedly said not long ago he was utterly fascinated by this subject – how to lie with statistics. “So do tell, Billy – why so?”)

    From “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” (1841), by Charles Mackay, comes this text which appears as a footnote within his 7th chapter… titled “The Magnetisers.”

    An enthusiastic philosopher, of whose name we are not informed, had constructed a very satisfactory theory of some subject or other, and was not a little proud of it.

    ” But the facts, my dear fellow,” said his friend, “the facts do not agree with your theory.”

    “Don’t they?” replied the philosopher, shrugging his shoulders. “Then, tant pis pour la faits;” – so much the worse for the facts!

    Science fraud is rife and a daily fact of life in today’s COMMUNITARIAN world. This is tantamount to seeing organized crime run amok, and so seemingly out of anyone’s control – save yourself.

    • Replies: @Michael Herzog
  26. anon[589] • Disclaimer says:

    Might be wise to have anyone with a university degree,
    anyone with an idea, anyone wanting to “improve” the world,
    pass an interview with Ted Kaczynski.

    5 dancing shlomos

  27. MarkU says:

    I wasn’t even aware that you had posted a video because I started in the middle of the argument, have now though.

    It is just another theory about what the missing 80% of the universes actually consists of. In one respect the video consistently misrepresented the concept of dark matter, as if dark matter was a thing that you believe in or not. The missing mass evidently exists, it is just that the plasma universe guys are saying ‘we know what the dark matter is’, the mainstream guys are unconvinced and are still speculating. The filament and web structures seem suggestive but as admitted in the video, the same structures are found in supernova explosions and no-one is demanding an electromagnetic explanation for them there.

    I don’t imagine that any cosmologist is happy about the fact that they can’t account for most of the mass of the universe. I’m sure the plasma guys have had a chance to present their equations and their case but it seems the mainstream guys aren’t buying it. One thing I noted was that no explanation was offered for the cause of the massive hypothetical electric currents creating the supposed magnetic fields, they seem to be just assuming they exist. I’m not convinced but thanks for posting anyway, its always good to see the various options.

    Have you seen this?

    I watched it one evening mainly by accident. I’m pretty sure the guy is wrong overall but I also have the gut feeling that some of his insights might be valuable, I liked the extra time dimensions stuff. It is a bit long and a bit dry in places but you might find it interesting. It is good to keep an open mind on these things, we obviously don’t have all the answers yet, maybe we never will.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  28. nickels says:

    Nice article, very good conclusion about science being only a tool.
    I have worked with scientists for many decades and I will say that they tend to be some of the most malleable, cliche minds in existence. Perhaps the only rival is the music crowd, who is similarly retarded beyond all comprehension.
    The problem is basic.
    They dont’t read history, they dont read philosophy. They view the world through a straw and become unbelievably arrogant.
    I suffered the same stupidity for many years. Only by dedicating a decade to the study of history did it begin to ease somewhat.
    Scientists are retards, plain and simple.

    • Agree: Schuetze
    • Replies: @MarkU
    , @utu
  29. @SteveK9

    The REAL religion is anthropogenic climate denialism. It has REAL money powering it-the tens of trillions of fossil fuel ‘assets’ at risk, and the lumpen numbskullery of the Dunning-Krugerites, as well, who make lemmings look geniuses.

    • Troll: RoatanBill
    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  30. @RoatanBill

    Climate science is based on physics and chemistry, and principles long understood. Don’t talk crap. You won’t find ANY denialists in China-they can comprehend science and those driven by pathopsychology to deny facts are probably undergoing rubber room treatment.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @restless94110
  31. @ValMonde

    @Tvic @ValMonde
    Wikipedia: “For the first time in history of science, Zubarev obtained a living cell from dead matter:
    Bernadotte, A.; Semenova, V.; Musial, V. A. M.; Kasprzykowska, A.; Zubarev, R. A. Self-assembly of Deinococcus radiodurans supports nanocell scenario of life origin, Discoveries, 2017, 5, E72, doi: 10.15190/d.2017.2.

    • Replies: @ValMonde
  32. MarkU says:
    @nickels

    Scientists are retards, plain and simple.

    Isn’t it amazing to think about all the discoveries and technological advances that have been made by retards. Apparently musicians are retards as well. If I were you I would steer well clear of science and music, some of that arrogance might rub off on you.

    I reckon you should stick to the study of history (ie what allegedly happened in the past, mostly according to the winners) you obviously won’t find any arrogance there, right?

    You claim you worked with scientists for many decades, I doubt that, though you might have worked with people I would describe as technicians or technologists. Most industry ‘scientists’ are really just glorified lab technicians, you most likely worked with some of those.

    • Replies: @Fox
  33. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    The last time I read about China’s plans, they were building hundreds of coal powered electrical plants per year. If that’s their commitment to the global warming nonsense, then I can tell by their actions what their policy is.

    I’m still waiting to get your science or engineering credentials.

  34. razzle says:

    Please fix the links in the article that go to the person’s C drive.

  35. @MarkU

    The conventional cosmologists are looking for dark matter and dark energy which the plasma physics folks have know about for decades by another name. The conventional cosmologists refuse to admit that electricity does anything in space and therefore won’t look at the evidence right in front of their eyes.

    All their experiments and wasted money looking for things by purposely avoiding electromagnetism haven’t yielded any results while the plasma physicists have been documenting the large scale plasma effects observed in space. That’s my gripe with conventional cosmology. They are purposely blind to the obvious.

  36. ValMonde says:
    @israel shamir

    I’m afraid, you have stumbled into the semantic traps of scientism and its demiurgic pretenses. I don’t blame you, they are scattered all over the place.
    Without diminishing the accomplishments of Mr. Zubarev and his team, reassembling lipids, proteins, RNA and DNA harvested from bacteria into something kinda “self-replicating” is very different from “forming a living cell from dead matter”. The abstract you’re referring to admits that much: “there is still a large gap between self-assembly of a biological compartment and a living cell.” And a “large gap” is the only understatement in this research paper.

  37. @Lark In Texas

    Bill Gates the philanderer!

    • Replies: @A Half Naked Fakir
  38. Annwn says: • Website

    Mr. Shamir, who sums up what Mr. Zubarev said, says : « Science has no morals, no ethics, no sense of right or wrong. (…) People understand what is good and what is bad, what is good and what is bad. This is not the case with science. »
    This is a mistake.
    To practice good and avoid evil, we must know where is the good and where is the evil, we must know the causes which make that such and such an action is good, that such an action is bad.
    It is the mission of real science to do this research; it is his mission to impose the conclusions after having made the necessity obvious.
    Let us be careful not to separate morality from science as Ms Zubarev and Shamir have the unfortunate idea of ​​doing.
    This proves that they are unaware that there is a science which governs manners, and which is nothing other than a chapter of physiology.
    How come they ignore this?
    This is because, like many others, they confuse true morality with false morality which, for its part, has no scientific basis.
    Now let’s see how these two morals differ from each other.
    Link (French): https://livresdefemmeslivresdeverites.blogspot.com/2017/07/lebienetlemal.html
    Cordially.

  39. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Climate science is totally corrupt taken over by religionists who shill for grant money. China doesn’t care about climate science at all. Their air is smoggy, they are building coal plants daily, and they are responsible for much of the trash in the oceans.

    So yes, we should all follow China’s “model” when it comes to climate “science,” and treat the “scientists” and those who scream about climate “change” as the Chinese treat the Uyghers. Do it before these psychopaths destroy the massive human progress made in the last 150 years.

  40. utu says:
    @nickels

    The withdrawal of philosophy into a “professional” shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth — and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending. – Paul Feyerabend

    • Replies: @nickels
  41. monopduly says: • Website
    @anno nimus

    The problem is indeed one of science; it is biological science. We are witnessing an incipient speciation, as under Emery’s Rule, of Monopduly, Human Intraspecific Social Parasitism (HISP), the elite begins to behave as a separate species:

    Emery (1909) observed that temporary, dulotic, and inquiline parasites are closely related to their hosts while xenobiotic parasites are not closely related to their hosts (these types of parasitism are defined below). However, the study by Emery (1909) was based only on a relatively small number of parasite species. Based on Emery’s findings, Le Masne (1956) coined the term Emery’s rule , which states that all social parasites are the closest relatives to their hosts. Ward (1989, 1996) suggests that this rule be further divided into a loose and strict form. The strictest form of Emery’s rule requires that the parasite be a sister species to its host while the loose form merely implies that the parasites and hosts are closely related (but not necessarily sister species). Emery’s rule has been frequently referred to in explanations of how social parasitism evolved; two main mechanisms for this have been offered.

    Wilson (1971) proposed that social parasitism originated from a geographical separation of a free-living parental population into two free-living species. These two isolated species were then reunited when the geographical barrier was eliminated. After reuniting, one species evolved into a parasite while the other species became a host. Alternatively, Buschinger (1986) suggested sympatric speciation. That is, a free-living parental population first experienced mutations that eventually became sub-populations of coexisting individuals that bred independently from the parental population (e.g. because of differences in mating preferences such as the time of day to mate). These two genetically isolated populations then became distinct species living in the same nest. Eventually, one species converted to parasitism while the other species became its host.

    Both of these accounts of parasitism evolution assume that parasite and host species derive from a recent common ancestor, and that the appearance of social parasitism is indeed linked to the speciation event that separates them (strict form of Emery’s rule).

    A meta‐analysis of social parasitism: host characteristics of different parasitism types and a test of Emery’s rule, Anna Dornhaus

  42. nsa says:
    @RoatanBill

    “Too many things are alled science today”.
    Over at the Microsoft campus in Bellevue, the half price Hindu code scribblers (mostly purloined from Bangalore and Mumbai) are routinely referred to as “scientists”.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  43. frontier says:
    @Realist

    But as I said in a previous post The beauty of science is that all theories are open to amendment or abandonment.

    You have to either stop saying it or accept that scientists must NOT guide us – they are too unreliable according to your “beauty” theory. In other words, we have to look at scientists as people leaving in la-la land that may or may not have some resemblance to reality. The letter in question surely reveals as much when it accepts inequality as a root cause, which is isn’t, and also insinuates that inequality is something other than Bezos and other airheads wasting tons of money on phony “private” rockets.

    Speaking of root causes, how about 8 Billion people today, an increase of nearly 100 million per year, isn’t this one of the root causes? Those “scientists” don’t know about it? They support policies that promote more of the same and expect us to believe them?

  44. Dumbo says:

    Meh. Fuck scientists. They are becoming worse than religious fanatics. Especially doctors and medical scientists, they are arrogant and evil.

    I want to know, how is it that “changing your sex” is scientifically sound, and there’s even a “transgender” Health Secretary mandating jabs to naturally immune 12 year old children, but choosing for whatever reason not to take a certain experimental mRNA therapy is somehow “anti-Science”?

    Also, I want to know, if all this vaccination stuff is SO good, why is it being pushed so hard, to the point of extortion and coercion? Good things don’t need coercion.

    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Publius 2
  45. Ghali says:

    While Dr Zubarev criticism of the Letter “Our Planet, Our Future: An Urgent Call for Action” is accurate and well founded, his attack on Brezhnev’s policy, is inaccurate. It was during Brezhnev’s rule that the USSR was the most stable and prosperous. After all, Dr Zubarev is a biotechnologist and like most scientists knows very little about world’s affairs, including economy. Better toothless than having sharp teeth “biting the third-world hand that feeds them”.

  46. R2b says:
    @Proximaking

    Very interesting!
    Of course it would be heck of a work produce citations, as Realist demands.
    But sufficient to say, that after Michelson/Morley, physics proved itself theorethically, rather than according to scientific method.

  47. Obama says:

    Alfred Nobel wanted to honor scientists who “…shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind”
    The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 was awarded to me, Obama.
    https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/summary/
    This says it all about the Nobel Prize awarding committee members, they are idiots. Fooled by my eloquence. And the prize itself is not worth much. Is Hollywood kind of magic, smoke screen.

  48. @RoatanBill

    Without the engineers and real scientists that invented the machines they use, they’d still be recommending blood letting as a cure all.

    While agreeing with your general points, I take issue with the current demonization of blood-letting. It was perhaps taken to an extreme degree in the 19th century, but its principles are quite consistent with modern ideas about reactive oxygen as a contribution to premature aging.

    Blood-letting reduces the build-up of free and semi-bound iron in the body. Excess iron is a known instigator of the Fenton reaction, which destroys tissue by reactive oxygen mechanisms. Several well-known genetic diseases, such as hemochromatosis, are similarly mediated by excess absorption of iron.

    The hypothesis that excess iron is responsible for several diseases of civilization is supported by epidemiological observation like the decreased susceptibility of women to heart disease until they pass menopause and begin accumulating iron like men do.

    Having subjected myself to the modern version of blood-letting some 80 times, I can attest to its safety and efficacy.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  49. @Michael Herzog

    Who can blame him? With a gazillion dollars in his back pocket, he still had to look at Melinda French in the morning. No wonder then he was enamored with the teenagers that Epstein and Maxwell were supplying by the truckloads!

  50. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    I note that you’ve actually stopped arguing the climate-science issues since I called you out for not knowing the difference between radiated and irradiated. Good choice, I suggest. You’re so much more amusing with your wealth of “lumpen numbskullery” and “Dunning-Krugerite” type of insults.

    Do tell us how much Chairman Xi is paying you for your services to the CCP.

  51. Publius 2 says:

    Peak oil for the win, as all educated folks have known since the days of “from the wilderness” in 2005.

  52. “As far as I know, GDP is just a number used in economic reports, and it has little bearing on real-life economic processes, not to mention the structure of the socio-economic system.”

    There’s a reason that GDP is repeatedly used in economic reports. And it matters to policy formulation —- the act that actual formula need serious work – an overhaul – isn’t mentioned, but GDP is a serious variable in monetary policy decisions in the US.

    GDP and GNP are not just numbers

    https://www.kpmg.us/insights/2021/growing-an-economy-in-disequilibrium.html?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&mid=m-00005882&utm_campaign=c-00104413&cid=c-00104413

    https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/121213/gdp-and-its-importance.asp

    • Replies: @frontier
  53. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Proximaking

    My problem with the MM experiment was that they assumed that the ether had to be in motion. Why?

    If the ether were the field of potentiality which supports all electromagnetic activity, why would it be in motion within the small space within which the experiment took place? Wouldn’t that space itself be in equilibrium in the larger etheric field?

    Also, we tend to view the ether as a thing, a substance. Why? What if it’s an underlying field? For example, unviable particles that are created in collisions in particle accelerators have a very short life span. Why? Their inherent structure must be incompatible with the underlying field within which they come into being.

    It was important to prove that the ether didn’t exist in order to prove that light could travel in a vacuum. But again, a vacuum in a flask is still space within the larger etheric field in which it exists. And a vacuum in outer space is not. It is literally awash with energy radiation.

    For me, the whole notion that a wave (light) could propagate in an utter vacuum is unbelievable. But it had to be accepted in order to believe the particle theory of light. Little bits of stuff flying through a vacuum. And once the notion of an ether was destroyed, then so too the idea of a preferential perspective or frame of reference went by the board. There is no fixed frame of reference. Too, the speed of light must be absolute. Two bodies traveling towards each other emit radiation. The speed of convergence of the radiation is not additive, as in phenomenon we are familiar with (sound waves in air), but behaves in this totally novel way. An observer on each body will measure the oncoming light as traveling at the speed of light and no higher. And this of course brought in the rubber space and time rulers.

    The ether is undetectable because everything we would use to detect it is already within the field. There is no “outside” to compare it with.

  54. MLK says:

    Science is a global common good on a quest for truth, knowledge, and innovation toward a better life.

    The disembodiment is telling. After all, has there been science without scientists? Would these sharp cookies signed onto the following more risible but honest assertion:

    Scientists seek a global common good on their quest for truth, knowledge, and innovation toward a better life for everyone.

    That’s what they want to say, and likely what they think of themselves, but if they had done so their statement would have been little more than a low-bar IQ test.

    It’s a sign of how thoroughly discredited major institutions and professions are that scientists figure now’s the time to make their play. I’m no PR genius but if you ask me rather than putting themselves on record with this troubling gibberish they’d improve their position just by getting the current Mr. Science himself, Anthony “Mengele” Fauci off the TV. They’d be better off with Pit-Pat:

    Seriously, no non-suicidal society trusts scientists, let alone adopts their definition of betterment.

  55. @nsa

    I’m an EE and a professional software developer. There’s no science in writing code. Code is pure logic and is why some people are naturally good at it and others will never be able to program effectively.

    The misuse of language is a huge part of the problem. How can there be any science in political science or the entire area of social science? Some people even talk about economic science. This is an outright fraud and hasn’t been called out for decades at least.

    Allowing supposed scientists to claim that certain things exist because their mathematical models say so isn’t science, it’s bullshit. Teaching the weak of mind that theories are facts needs to stop. When climate scientists, for example, decide their models should be the basis of policies for the whole world, that should be enough for people to realize that the term scientist has been stretched into an absurdity.

    Science exists, but so does pseudoscience. Right now, the pseudoscience practitioners are in control and are leading the world into the abyss. We need to get rid of the humanities and social sciences as legitimate areas of study or limit them to a bachelors degree at best since they can’t prove a damned thing. That would be a start at correcting what’s wrong.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @anon
  56. @Peripatetic Itch

    I guess the as a cure all part didn’t register with you.

  57. Dumbo says:

    I think the only person who still believes in “global warming” is that Mongol Mumblingbrain dude… No offence, each one can think whatever they want, but the idea that we are somehow more powerful than the Sun or the Earth is quite ridiculous…

    Sure, human industrial activity causes many problems, pollution, smog, littering of the oceans, mercury. But the Earth’s temperature increase, I don’t think it’s one of them.

    And in the end, even if the temperature increases by an astounding 20 degrees, it’s not the end of life, or even human life, we just need to move nearer to the poles, to Northern Canada, Siberia… Sure, some people living near the equator might have a rougher time, but they are already migrating to the Great White North… Wait, but perhaps this will mean further migration of millions of Africans to Europe and the US?!? Forget what I said, it might really be a world-ending calamity in that case! Sheeeeeeeit!

  58. Publius 2 says:
    @MarkU

    Lol mainstream, standard, and google.

    Next tell us what Yahoo! News tells us to think about it.

    Also you can take your mask off. There never was a pandemic. It’s the common cold. Obviously.

    Just look around. Not one person has died.

  59. anonymous[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @Proximaking

    It is a fallacy of materialists to assume the Ether is physical having already assumed that only the physical is real. The Ether is a logical construct to connect the world we see with Being, which we do not see, but without which the world we see is absurd phantasmagoria. The Ether may be physical or non-physical, but without it there is the perception that only the physical world is “real” without any connection to a metaphysical reality. Such an idea is ludicrous, but that is what is assumed by modern science. Ether, besides being a logical step in the classic philosophical theory which joins the physical and non-physical, existence and non-existence, implies the existence of a “subtle body” which surrounds the physical body. The existence of a “subtle body” would explain how acquired characteristics could be transmitted “genetically” (because there is also transmission of heredity through a subtle body). Without a subtle “body,” and around it an additional completely transubstantial “body,” the world cannot exist. Such a world view would make the world “God,” and that, besides being “non-scientific” is also upside-down and inside-out. A Russian physicist B.V. Plakhov in “Ether and fundamental transformations” (2015) demonstrated the existence of the Ether not by a physical experiment but as deduced mathematically from physical constants. The fallacy of the Michelson-Morley experiment was in assuming the Ether is physical and physically measurable. It is measurable only through other means, the mathematical equations used by Plakhov in his demonstration. Plakhov certainly deserves the Nobel prize. And it would not be against the rules as he is Jewish, but, of course, not religious.

    • Agree: Garliv
  60. Publius 2 says:
    @Dumbo

    Yep— what the plandemic hoax has revealed is the worship of doctors and the medical profession needs to be severely curtailed. Doctors are not gods and they know only what they are told to believe. In medical school and by big pharma. And (((journals))).

    The (((AMA)) has been corrupted for at least 55 years.

    Look at the issue of (((circumcision))).

    Doctors are usually fairly smart, but it’s obvious they are usually not doing real science. They are not doing chemistry work in a lab.

    The fact that half of medical doctors, apparently, support the plandemic hoax, forced masking, and the “vaccine” is horrifying.

    I am getting so tired of hearing communist zombies say the word “science” when they are advocating something that is POLITICS and clearly not settled.

    Sane people need to fight back against leftists, who are clearly mentally ill.

  61. Dumbo says:

    When did “Science!” become a religion, and not just a method? (Scientific method). Science just means “knowledge”, but it isn’t even that, as a lot of what “science” believes can be wrong, or proven wrong later on. For years, even following the scientific method, we thought that a lot of things were true, when they really weren’t. In most cases, all we can hope is some approximation.

    • Replies: @mike99588
  62. @Realist

    Oxford Dictionary interpretation of the word science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT.

    While I admit that I totally do not qualify as a man of science, common sense dictates that I heed the fact that no one living person witnessed the Big Bang to record the manner and the date. The same applies to the theory of evolution which failed so far to trace the evolutionary progression of any species from its original form to where it is supposed to have reached. Theoretical science is rife with theories that cannot be validated by observable facts. Newton studied the how of what he assumed to be related to gravity and while his formula withstood the test of time, his assumption is hardly sacrosanct. Applied science on the other hand is always subject to scrutiny and Tesla resolved to limit his experiences to what can be proven by observable facts while pouring cold water on Einstein’s theory of relativity.

  63. Publius 2 says:

    The two links to peak oil (((articles))) in leftist publications lead to frustration and shaking my head, like all MSM articles do. What those (((articles))) discuss—reduced oil _demand_ because of the plandemic hoax and other leftist brainwashing—is not peak oil.

    Peak oil as discussed in the early 2000s refers to an involuntary decline in oil _production_ because of an inability to extract enough of it, because of a dwindling quantity of it available to us.

  64. @MarkU

    ” there is no such thing as negative mass”

    Wouldn’t you consider a Black Hole to be negative mass? https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9705007

  65. @obwandiyag

    Science is not a “vague abstraction” it is a precisely defined process.

    It’s core principles involve observation, hypothesis and testing. It of necessity requires free and open discussion. Challenges must be welcome and data freely available for testing and challenges. Science doesn’t generally accept anything can be proved, only supported by the evidence but it can be disproved by a single bit of evidence on the other hand. There is no scientific authority which is the final arbiter of “The Science” that was how it was done pre-enlightenment. Once the Church was the science authority and to have Government or anybody now become the final word on “Science” is as preposterous as censoring any challenges to “The Science”. Only Dogma needs censorship to protect itself. As do lies. Science like truth by implication can only be strengthened by challenges.

    As a devotee of the process of science I consider science to be the least vague and abstract thing on Earth. It survives even the possibility we live in a holographic simulation. Not much else does. That is about as non-abstract as it gets.

    • LOL: frontier
    • Replies: @Rabbitnexus
  66. @Rabbitnexus

    The opposite of abstract in this instance would have been a vastly better choice for the last sentence. Objective.. Science is above all objective. Not ever abstract. The new kind being orchestrated by Chief Wizard Fauci, now that is abstract. As it was in the Middle Ages. Based on guesswork and arbitrary declarations..

  67. @MarkU

    Rubbish. Electricity is far stronger than Gravity. Gravity loses it’s force rapidly over distance too. Electricity, especially plasma doesn’t.

    Negative mass is an open research question. Part of this research is the coupling of antimatter particles with gravity, and there are experiments studying this at CERN, with anti hydrogen and how it is affected by the earth’s gravity.

  68. Fr. John says:
    @Realist

    “Scientists utilize science to seek knowledge and truth…religion and politics utilize dogma to seek control.”

    True- As long as you are talking about FALSE religions. Speaking of which…

    “Science is not made to guide people. Science has no morals, no ethics, no feeling of right or wrong. It is a tool, like a tractor.

    Wrong. As CS Lewis noted: “There is no neutral ground in the universe. Every square inch, every split second is claimed by God, and counterclaimed by Satan.”

    Therefore, Science is NOT neutral. Just a simple perusal of the DOCTRINE of EVOLUTION, should shut most people’s mouths… but it doesn’t, because, for most people, THIS IS A DOGMA of…..

    SCIENCE!

    Yeah. Science IS the new Religion of the ‘Modern Man.’ Thanks, but no test tube ever loved me enough to endure the Cross for my salvation. Just sayin’…..

  69. Gandhi harmed Jewish interests which is why he never received the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course Michael Brown aka Martin Luther King, who the media claimed was inspired by Gandhi, did receive it. Not so hard to figure out when you understand how it really works.

  70. onebornfree says: • Website

    “The Letter admits that No one knows for sure what will work”

    But at the same time, the unspoken assumption, as per usual, is that there are actual, real world, government solutions. 😒

    And by government, I mean corporate solutions too, since large corporations and the “scientists” they all pay off in order to reach the “right” conclusions, via their supposedly irrefutable “scientific research”, in order to give their euthanasia agenda the thin veneer of scientific credibility so that the unsuspecting, naive, average dunderhead will swallow “the truth”, “hook, line and sinker”, ultimately all still need governments to forcibly ram that global-warming/euthanasia agenda down everyone else’s throats.

    Government Solutions Never Work:

    This just in: there are _no_ government solutions to _any_ problem in this world; never have been, and never will be.

    So even if all of the global-warming future catastrophe scenarios were actually correct, the absolute worst course to take is one that involved some imagined government solution to that problem.

    Some reminders:

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic” H.L.Mencken

    “Government doesn’t work”
    Harry Browne
    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Agree: CelestiaQuesta
  71. frontier says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    There’s a reason that GDP is repeatedly used in economic reports. And it matters to policy formulation

    Really? You mean manipulating treasury yields and rigging the stock market don’t matter for policy formulation? It’s the GDP that matters? I’m yet to see the market react on GDP data… because everybody knows it’s bullshit. But the Fed utters a single word about their magic printing machine and the market either flies sky high or falls crashing down.

    GDP would mean something in a sound financial system but it means nothing in an economy of unlimited counterfeit monetization, unlimited government debt and unlimited Fed balance sheet. Government spending is included in the GDP and inflation is routinely underestimated – either one of these is enough to make GDP a meaningless number. Then, GDP doesn’t account for the capital flight induced by chronic trade deficits – a fundamental and disqualifying flaw. So, the article is right to describe la-la land GDP as irrelevant for real-life economic processes.

  72. The Letter says that Global emissions of greenhouse gases need to be cut by half in the decade of 2021-2030. Compare this with the global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic – in 2020 carbon emissions from energy use fell by 6.3%, but the world’s GDP shrunk almost equally, by 5.2%.

    Curiously, I have by now read the research efforts of about half a dozen data analysts trying to discern the effect of that 6.3% reduction on the trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Each one seemed to be more sophisticated than the previous one. But not one of them was able to discern any effect on the trend at all. It continued to rise at its average 2ppm/year just as if there had been no pandemic at all.

    Some of us would take that as a refutation of the contention that our fossil fuel burning is the cause of the large increase in CO2 concentration in our atmosphere over the past 60 years or so. Others argue that we just did not cut back enough to make a difference. They are now saying we won’t see an effect until we cut back by similar amounts for three years in a row. Or perhaps at least three years.

    Meanwhile we are currently in another pause in the global warming trend. There has been no discernible global warming in the past six years despite the continuing increase in CO2 concentration. It’s so bad the climate czars just adjusted the 2016 temperature record downwards to make it seem like there has been some warming.

    • Thanks: Nancy
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  73. Fox says:
    @MarkU

    It appears that you think that you know some of the “scientists”. How do you know that you are dealing with creative, intelligent, capable people and not just with one-dimensional experts in a narrowly defined field they love and have learned to understand to their own advantage?

  74. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @RoatanBill

    Einstein speaks of gravity as perturbations of the space time continuum. How is this any different from the notion that all bodies in space distort the etheric field around them (being themselves, the source of a field)? It seems that, in focusing on gravity, the moderns have merely substituted the word “space” for “ether”.

    • Agree: Alfred Muscaria
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  75. geokat62 says:

    After all, since the 11th century, nobody has yet claimed to guide the whole of mankind.

    Au contraire! International Jewry has been striving to “guide” the whole of mankind ever since HaShem commanded “let their be light!”

    Although they’ve endeavoured to camouflage their cosmic aspirations by branding it under the label Tikkun olam (fix the world), it is becoming obvious to even the most dim-witted who’s behind the curtain pulling the strings.

    Their first attempt at Tikkun olam was the Bolshevik Revolution whose purported purpose was to usher in the fabled workers paradise. When that failed miserably (at the expense of over 100 million innocent goyim souls), they quickly retooled and followed up with Tikkun olam 2.0, a wokers paradise.

    According to the edicts of Jewish Supremacist Organisations (JSOs), Never Again! means saying goodbye to blood and soil and hello to multiculti.

    That’s because ethno-nationalism leads to fascism, which leads to genocide.

    For proof of the logic of this statement, they can point to the deeds of their own ethno-state.

    So, never forget… Diversity is (((our))) strength, goy!

  76. SafeNow says:

    “Scientists are retards, plain and simple.”

    Inartfully expressed, but has the concept right. (Like Trump) Not only do I distrust what a scientist says about non-science. I even distrust what a scientist opines about science where it is a science field outside his specialty.

    There’s an old joke about a Cambridge, Massachusetts supermarket express lane. “10 items or fewer,” says the sign. A fellow in line has a full cart of groceries. An observer says to his companion: “That fellow is either from Harvard and he can’t count, or from M.I.T. and he can’t read.”

    For decades we have sent astronauts into space, and these scientific pilots always seem to broadcast to us that “the view is amazing.” STEM students at Stuyvesant High do great science, but don’t ask one to explain why the Ancient Mariner shot the albatross. It’s different kinds of smarts. Everyone here knows what he’s pretty darn smart at, and, recognizes what he’s not very smart at. Nobel laureates don’t seem to get this.

  77. With all the “Follow The Science” hysteria spreading around, it’s no wonder people have become obsessed with popular delusions and the madness it eventually leads too.
    We need more scientists like Prof. R.Z., most scientists are like permanent politicians or high level permanent federal bureaucrats, now rogue mini tyrants against checks and balance on power they swore to uphold.
    Scientific facts are theoretical lies that within a given timeline will be disproven.
    The promise by government to protect your pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, is also a lie.

  78. @anon

    The bulk of ‘space’ is actually a plasma in dark mode. What telescopes see as these fantastic formations in space is higher energy plasma that throws off light.

    Whole galaxies are ‘pearls on a string’ of the plasma that powers them. The sun is a nuclear furnace is a theory. The other theory is that our solar system is externally powered with the sun as the focus and any nuclear activity in the sun is due to huge amounts of energy flowing into the sun from outside it. That’s why the surface of the sun is orders of magnitude cooler than the higher elevations. It’s also why sun spots are black and cooler than their surroundings.

    Lots of what conventional theories hold to be facts have other explanations. The educational institutions favor one side and is all they teach leading to whole areas of science being on a wild goose chase looking for unicorns.

    • LOL: Realist
    • Replies: @Rabbitnexus
    , @Realist
  79. Drew says:
    @obwandiyag

    I wish there was a way to upvote this comment…

    Two other points worth making are:

    1) Models are not science, they are models. More specifically, they are representations of selected inputs by specific humans. They are not proof, and often aren’t research. They are simply concepts, visualized.

    2) The result of a unique experiment proves nothing, in isolation. Until an experiment is replicated many times, it is best presumed to more likely be a fluke than a fact.

    Science doesn’t tell us anything, and even most of what scientists have told us historically has turned out to be incomplete, false, fluky or uselessly precise. Science is not worthless, but it is also not worth nearly as much as is taken for granted.

  80. @RoatanBill

    The greatest hoax in science that has lasted over one hundred years is from one of the greatest minds that ever lived.
    While working in the Patent and Trademark office, this brilliant mind came up with the theory of relativity. How many patents and trademarks did he study to come to this conclusion?
    And then there’s Nicola Tesla, who discovered the electric universe and wireless electricity, and who was left penniless with all his patents and experiments stolen, with his named whored out on electric vehicles by a narcissistic ego maniac.

    • Thanks: Alfred Muscaria
  81. @SteveK9

    “ Big Pharma money has completely corrupted Medicine”

    C’mon man, look at all those poor fat overweight slobs with shoeboxes filled with dozens of bottles of pills that keep them coming back for more, and in most cases paid for by government and its (((Big Pharma))) subsidiaries.
    It’s one big happy racket club and you aren’t in it.

  82. @CelestiaQuesta

    Einstein’s theories about space time will eventually be found lacking. All the reports of people proving his nonsense are just more posturing by people with a vested interest in continued research (getting paid for doing nothing of value) into the discovery of unicorns.

    Once there’s a paradigm shift into electricity and plasma forming the basis of how the universe functions is when real new discoveries will be made. There’s a reason that the last 50 years have yielded little but ridiculous theories. That shift will require the current grant recipients to die off and their black hole, dark matter, etc, following them into the grave.

    At some point, I predict, the 4 forces will all boil down to variations of electromagnetism.

    • Agree: CelestiaQuesta
  83. Agent76 says:

    “Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts” Richard Feynman

    JUN 21, 2021 Of Modeling Failures In Epidemiology, Climate Change, And Haruspicy

    The Government’s reliance on Sage experts’ computer modeling to predict what would happen with or without various interventions has proved about as useful as the ancient Roman habit of consulting trained experts in “haruspicy” – interpreting the entrails of chickens.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/of-modeling-failures-in-epidemiology-climate-change-and-haruspicy/

    Jul 21, 2021 The Untouchables

    Academic climate fraudsters know they can say whatever lies they want with impunity.

    • Thanks: mike99588
  84. As is well known, greenhouses pump CO2 in to maintain levels of 1,ooo ppm. They would maintain 2,000 ppm, the historic level of the formerly green earth, but it’s not quite cost effective. The industrial revolution rescued us from the 280 ppm present at that time and from the deadly result of carbon desert, for photosynthesis no longer fuctions below 180.

    But let us by all means spend trillions we don’t have to remove what little life giving carbon we do have remaining in the atmosphere. It’s science!

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  85. 76239 says:

    “Science is not made to guide people.”

    No, but like other disciplines, it gets hijacked by the evil and then is used to dominate others.

  86. Anon[401] • Disclaimer says:

    I hate to break it to you, but science is all there is. You can not even begin to formulate the issues without it. It is not perfect for sure, but it is all you have. There is no question and there is no answer without it. The people that write these articles just don’t want to do science because they are lazy blowhards that find ways to make money other ways. Science is all there is.

  87. Zubarev is plainly burnishing his credentials to get on the highly lucrative denialist payroll.

    • Troll: Peripatetic Itch
  88. @james wilson

    Greenhouses are closed environments where water and freedom from pests and diseases are guaranteed. The Earth is a system where increased CO2 leads to droughts, deeper and longer, and floods and deluges, ever more extreme. Hardly ‘paradise’. This is an old idiocy that the worst Dunning-Krugerites readily swallow, being too stupid to realise that they have been had.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  89. @Peripatetic Itch

    Outright lying really IS your forte’, scratchy. The last seven years were the hottest recorded, 2016 and 2020 the hottest ever. Besides, the temperature does not go straight up, or down-it oscillates due to solar radiance and global climate cycles like ENSO, but to deny the inexorable warming trend, is imbecility, pig ignorance, or both.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  90. Ron Unz says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Greenhouses are closed environments where water and freedom from pests and diseases are guaranteed. The Earth is a system where increased CO2 leads to droughts, deeper and longer, and floods and deluges, ever more extreme.

    I noticed you popped up on this website a few months ago and have become a very heavy commenter. Some of your views seem pretty reasonable, but others rather “excitable” and I think you’d have more impact if you reduced the volume of your insults and tried to make most of your comments substantive rather than merely rhetorical.

    With regard to the Global Warming controversy, I’m hardly an expert on the subject but you might want to take a look at this column I published on the subject a decade ago:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/two-cheers-for-heresy-on-global-warming/

    Nothing I’ve seen since that time has caused me to change my opinions.

    • Agree: israel shamir
    • Thanks: CelestiaQuesta
  91. Skeptikal says:

    Great essay (Zubarev’s comments read more or less like an essay).
    I agree with IS’s wrap-up.

  92. John Hagan says: • Website

    SATIRE ….
    Life was happy and normal on the planet ‘KELPONIA’. Now we are declaring war. The enemy is ‘SYNNCOV’ that has been weaponised and has begun killing our people. It is an emergency and we all should abide by the new rules. Are we on the side of fighting with all our resources to prevent innocent casualities and to win the war or are we non-conbatants who believe that the discovery of the chemical weapons of mass destruction are overhyped by our spies and newspapers. Is there a proft for the military in developing and selling the weapon called ‘VOCNY’ that employs a chemical formula that works faster than the speed of light to fight such a remourcless and cruel enemy? What are the long term effects of using this new weapon. Will our children be safer living with such an experimental weapon.

    • Thanks: CelestiaQuesta
  93. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    The last seven years were the hottest recorded, 2016 and 2020 the hottest ever.

    From the same experts, no doubt, who told us that every country in the world was being hit by global warming twice as hard as the rest of the world. Such a neat trick.

    From the same experts, no doubt, who told us that this year’s frost disaster hitting European wine crops was just more global warming. Just like the current frost disaster hitting Brazilian coffee and sugar cane.

    From the same experts, no doubt, who are ignoring what may soon be called Greenland’s year without a summer. From the same experts who adjusted the temperature record to extinguish the Medieval Warm Period, when the Greenland Norse were farming on land now covered by glaciers and ice sheets.

    NASA CAUGHT “ADJUSTING” GLOBAL TEMPERATURE GRAPH — AGAIN
    https://electroverse.net/nasa-caught-adjusting-global-temperature-graph/

    Interesting to see you admit there are global climate cycles driven by natural forces. You sure you’re not stepping off the reservation there?

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  94. Che Guava says:
    @Rational

    Agree on nepotism, self-aggrandisement, theft.

    However, there is no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics.

    That many penple think, or pretend to think, that it exists is a minor but perfect example of mass-media-driven false concensus reality.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
  95. Have you ever given it a single thought how much CO2 and heat produces the world population’s body of 7.9 billion people treading the globe?

    Dumping the shit, farting, sweating, walking, sitting, jogging, exercising, drinking water and consuming the hydrocarbonic (carbohydrate) food and warming it up inside the body through breakdown, breathing, watching TV shows, talking, thinking, and keeping the house clean and the like combined together are all producing the heat and CO2 much more than those volcanos, industry, and cultural Marxism combined. Look below the surface, global greenhouse gas emissions and CBAM, SDGs, Carbon Tax, TIL, BTA, GD and such restrictive guidelines and regulations are all tools for the “global depopulation” explicitly running through economic dictate. Essentially, the “Climate change” claim is none of the economic and/or weather concerns (and the cultural, a fortiori), but implicates and indicates the overspill of world population. The goal is to depopulate the Earth within due limits (China, India, Africa, Pakistan, Middle East, etc.).

    Stop citing, interviewing, and questionnairing the “Wannabe” people. All of these and their approaches are “Wannabe” reasoning. Their jobs are a real shit.

  96. As a businessman, the solution to economic woes is pretty simple; you want people to buy stuff? Then they’ll need money to do so [talking cash here, not credit].

    Tax the rich. Let the poor be.

    Turn billionaires into millionaires [or less].

  97. @Ron Unz

    Having now read that column and its comments, what most impresses me is the distinct transformation in the opinions of Unz readers. Back in 2012, most disagreed even with your limited skepticism. Today most of us here are in active disagreement with the so-called AGW consensus.

    Back then there seemed to be an explicit trust in the objectivity of scientists and the Green movement, together with a major distrust of big oil. Today we seem to see corruption in all sides of the controversy. We have been lied to on so many issues that we come to the UR as one of the few places where honesty is not censured. So to a certain extent we are a self-selected group that does not take BS from those who would demonize us as deniers.

    Many of us are also professionals or retired professionals who realize that much of the AGW narrative comes from computer models. We know that such models are easy to tune and get whatever result we might want. In particular Pat Frank has shown that the crucial data on world cloud cover has an error rate averaging 7% every year. This produces a huge uncertainty in the model results that propagates at every step in the calculation and makes the models useless for purpose.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  98. @Realist

    The beauty of science is that all theories are open to amendment or abandonment.

    Except that as we well know, that isn’t the case with human group differences or anything else that remotely touches upon either negro or Jewish egos.

  99. @anno nimus

    “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” Luke 18:8

    I know that whenever I am feeling a little bit down, I immediately rush just like you to find out what an old Jew thought of the subject. Why, whenever I have any question about anything at all, I can just flip open my family JewBook and get the definitive answer. It’s all right there, the Jews told us so…

  100. @RoatanBill

    I wrote a couple hundred words in reply. I thought that they were at least more astute than the “Lorem ipsum” of Adobe. But my Brave app on my iPhone tosses its cookies with great regularity and nukes my comments before anyone ever has a chance to censor them.

    Am I the only one who is noticing that nothing works properly anymore? Try to change cellular providers, let me know how it goes. Try to exchange a manufacturer’s defective product, how did it work out for you? In seemingly every interaction, I find only gross incompetence. Much of it can be laid at the feet of the Boomer who raised the Millennial trainwreck at the center of it, but in the back office there’s a fellow GenX (obviously suffering from Downs) who is ultimately responsible from a “buck stops here” standpoint.

    I honestly don’t think that I can function effectively in this paradigm. I see stupidity that is so egregious and arbitrary that it absolutely defies description. On top of the stupid is a thick and stinking layer of self-entitlement and arrogance. This is adding a 2’ layer of pure horse shit atop an already unsustainable and idiotic base layer. I want nothing to do with any of it. Fuck you and your ____. If the price of having a ____ is putting up with your unbelievable stupidity, fuck off.

    And, thus I wonder, how far away are the rest of you? At what point do we all go John Galt and let the savages & parasites eat each other? They’re not going to get all of us, at least those of us who are prepared and possess good situational awareness. But it’s definitely going to get extremely ugly before it begins to get better. Why continue to prop it up?

    At what point is your \$400K/yr job just not worth what the system is doing to your children? Not worth what it’s doing to you?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  101. mike99588 says:
    @Dumbo

    When govt/foundation grants and various regulatory obstructions made academia into a gatekeeping priesthood instead of low paid beggars that taught instead of doing industrial scale in rapid, hypercompetitive or hyperactive markets.

  102. @Stan d Mute

    Just recently, I called Bosch tech support to complain about their battery operated drills. I own 5 of them and 3 now have the same symptoms. When I pull the trigger, they either do nothing, start spinning incredibly slowly, or turn on and off according to their whim. The 5 batteries work fine in the other 2 drills. What I got as a reply was totally unsatisfying boilerplate. They just don’t care.

    Next, I contacted a welder manufacturer that I bought an accessory from, a dual output argon flow meter. My query was for a replacement hose barb larger than the one that came with the device. In reply they asked for what welder I owned, which shouldn’t make any difference, and when I told them I didn’t own their brand, they never answered my query. They just ignored me.

    I conclude that tech support specifically and the general attitude most corporations have is to only go after new sales. Once they’ve got your money, that’s it. I believe this is everyone trying to grab as much as they can while they still can, knowing the end is near. There’s no long term thinking left.

    I went John Galt 16 years ago when I left the US. I knew back then that everything was just going to slide further down hill.

  103. @brabantian

    100% of climate destabilisation denialists (the Big Boys, not the lumpen dullards) say what their fossil fuel patrons want them to say. As for climate scientists, they get a wage, or would you Rightwing dullards prefer they work for nothing?

    • Replies: @W
    , @restless94110
  104. @Peripatetic Itch

    Perhaps it’s some sort of infectious brain disease, scratchy, transmitted through the Web. Because, since 2019, the evidence for rapidly accelerating climate destabilisation has grown to truly prodigious quantities. And right now, with ‘one in a thousand year floods’ in China, India, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Costa Rica, New Zealand etc, and temperatures of 50 degrees C in British Columbia (??!!), the western USA burning AGAIN, Scandinavia, Karelia and Yakutia burning, smoke choking New York, unbearable temperatures even in Kuwait and Iran etc, etc, it takes a truly fanatic, Life-hating, ideological fanatic and spiritual black-hole to STILL be screeching that it is ALL a hoax. No evidence, of course, just the screaming of that infinite void that denialists possess where others have a soul.

  105. @Peripatetic Itch

    Like most brainwashed denialist cretins, you do not possess the nous to understand that the global climate, being a chaotic system, will show erratic behaviours as more energy is stored in the system thanks to greenhouse gases capturing re-radiated solar energy, rather than it escaping into space. Thus the disaster that will soon kill most of us is best called ‘anthropogenic climate destabilisation’ and the stable Holocene is over, and the brief Anthropocene (being rapidly succeeded by the Thanatocene)is here.
    Thus you get EXTREMES, mostly of heat, and dry, but also of cold, as frigid air escapes the polar regions thanks to localised effects like the ‘looping’ of the jet-streams and excursions to lower latitudes of air once held in place by the Arctic Vortex. And, as we see from the current outburst of record deluges and floods, world-wide, there is also massive exacerbation of the hydrological cycle, and more energetic lightning storms, wet and dry.
    One does note an ever increasing hysteria in the denialist gibberish being spewed everywhere. It is, of course, due to the Dunning-Krugerites’ refusal to admit error, or learn anything. Admitting one error would undermine the entire ricketty erection of their loonie belief that they are really, really, clever, because they repeat, like badly maintained automata, the lies that their denialist industry Thought Controllers have drummed into their Stegosaur brains. It is very hard to admit that you are a fool, easily led astray by charlatans. Moreover the denialati know, as every sane person knows, that being a Big Mouth, blowhard, denialist this late in the day, will not meet with universal acclaim when the serfs finally wake to their fate. I’d love to see extremist denialists like you, scratchy, visit Germany to tell the flooded victims that climate destabilisation is a ‘hoax’. A less than friendly reception awaits. My advice-plead idiocy.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  106. @RoatanBill

    Yes indeed. As an adherent of the Electric Universe Theory myself over the years as it has resolved what have become and remain mysteries for the traditional astrophysics, I can think of plenty of examples. When a theory has become mainstream and careers are built on it, then as you say all academia has been busy building on this theoretical world. As anomalies arise, which they do, then explanations become new theories. For example Black Holes, which exist as theory but have not been proved to actually exist as they are understood to be. The entire concept of Black Holes is pure conjecture. It is deemed to be true, because it fills in a gap in the standard theory of astrophysics.

    Theories created to sustain another theory when it fails? Hmmm. Not the way I learnt science is meant to work. Electric Universe theory proposes an entirely different model which has no need whatever for Black Holes. It does not suffer from any of the restrictions and observed failures of current establishment theory and the whole notion of black holes becomes a fantasy and implies the efforts of “Great Minds” working on such theories are just engaged in mental masturbation. Whatever the truth, the allegory remains. A lot of flat earth scientists got unemployed back whenever the West finally cottoned on to the spherical nature of things. Galileo only broke the waters then recanted after all so it wasn’t then.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  107. @Rabbitnexus

    Since you’re familiar with Electric Universe Theory, I suspect you know who Stephen Smith is.

    “… a theory built on questionable assumptions should never be the basis for new theories.”
    Stephen Smith

    That quote sums up the current state of affairs nicely.

    Lots of people with science backgrounds have never seriously researched Electric Universe Theory but they absolutely know it’s wrong. These are the religious zealots that have a closed mind completely impervious to new thinking and new possibilities.

    As an EE, when I discovered Electric Universe Theory almost two decades ago, I was elated to find that my suspicions that mainstream science had veered into the weeds almost a century ago was shared by others. People like Wal Thornhill, Anthony Peratt, Montgomery Childs and many others are unknown to most people, but they are quietly advancing real science that is chipping away at the Big Bang nonsense and other fables right now. The Safire Project alone is making mainstream science look silly by comparison.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
  108. Skeptikal says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Mulga: I suggest that you learn German so that you can access local reacgtions and info as to the huge local failures led to the catastrophe in Germany. Before you blow off your mouth about the Germany floods anymore. The speed with which those who failed to pay any heeds to days-long warnings of ueber=heavy rains jumped to exonerate themselves by pointing at climate change—thereby more or less making the victims responsible for their victimhood and exculpating themselves, actual authorities.

    Furthermore on=the=scene video available at the Corona Ausschuss, session 62 (I think), beginnign of session. shows eery footage of authorities NOW using loudspeakers to forbid any drone photos of the flood area. WTF?

    Seems like there may be military bunker installations in them thar hills of the Eifel . . .

    So don’t blow your mouth off about Germany until you have the chops to follow local news.
    You can start with this:

    Das Totalversagen der Behörden! Wetterkarten beweisen: Extrem-Unwetter war seit Tagen bekannt!

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  109. Layman says:

    Quasi lignum vitae in paradiso Dei, et quasi lucerna fulgoris in domo Domini, such is the place of science in modern civilisation… It has come about that men assign it this high place, perhaps idolatrously, perhaps to the detriment of the best and most intimate interests of the race”. – Thorstein Veblen, The Place of Science in Modern Civilisation (1919).

  110. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    The other theory is that our solar system is externally powered with the sun as the focus and any nuclear activity in the sun is due to huge amounts of energy flowing into the sun from outside it.

    WTF…speaking of unicorns.

    It’s also why sun spots are black and cooler than their surroundings.

    Sunspots are caused by a magnetic field flux that inhibits convection and is cooler than surrounding areas.

    • Agree: Mulga Mumblebrain
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  111. @Skeptikal

    So, local authorities were not prepared for ‘one in a thousand years’ deluges, were they not? How inefficient of them. Are there ANY climate or weather disasters that you denialists will NOT simply deny are extraordinary and immensely threatening, with reference to some diversion or some tatty newspaper clipping written by a drunken ‘reporter’, holding a thermometer in the sunshine, or chatting with a local drunk in the pub? Are you frightened, or simply dismissive of the greatest threat to human existence ever, in the quest for social acceptance with….lunatics? What drives the rejection of reality and the threat of immense danger?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  112. @Realist

    I realize you’re at a disadvantage, having swallowed the conventional explanation, hook line and sinker. If you would take the time to actually investigate alternate explanations, you might have a leg to stand on when throwing shade on those that have spent the time.

    No one KNOWS how the sun functions. Every theory is speculation since no one has been there to dig around to discover the truth. I, at least, have an open mind and have looked at alternate theories and they make a lot more sense to me than the conventional explanations. Just read your explanation for the sun spots and ask yourself if there’s a hint of proof for that to be correct.

    • Replies: @Realist
  113. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    I realize you’re at a disadvantage, having swallowed the conventional explanation, hook line and sinker.

    It appears you are the one doing the swallowing.

    If you would take the time to actually investigate alternate explanations, you might have a leg to stand on when throwing shade on those that have spent the time.

    My degree is in chemistry and physics…actual scientific studies.

    No one KNOWS how the sun functions.

    That is totally wrong. You are the one who doesn’t know how the sun functions. Perhaps you can elucidate how plasma cosmology explains how the sun functions?

    I, at least, have an open mind and have looked at alternate theories and they make a lot more sense to me than the conventional explanations.

    Sometimes minds that are too open, have a problem with things falling out…like logic.

    Just read your explanation for the sun spots and ask yourself if there’s a hint of proof for that to be correct.

    But of course, there is. I have included a video that explains all your questions and more.

    You have mentioned a number of times that you are an engineer and not a scientist…perhaps that is where the problem lies.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @W
  114. @Realist

    I took chemistry and physics too. Not enough for a degree, but it’s not like it’s a mystery to me.

    To dismiss Electric Universe Theory without ever really studying it, is that really what a scientist would do?

    I was inculcated with the parochial view of how the world functions and was never really satisfied with many aspects. When I chanced upon EU theory, it was like a door opened. Why not give it a try?

    • Replies: @Realist
  115. @Ron Unz

    Yes, I am afraid that I get a little intemperate when dealing with the greatest existential threat to Humanity (I believe it has gone past ‘threat’ to unfolding cataclysm)ever, and ineducable dullards who deny a reality almost as certain as the rising of the Sun every morning. I really must ignore them, even when they screech their denialism apropos of nothing in particular, like a religious mantra.
    As for your article, if I may be so bold as to offer a few comments. First, it is nine years out of date. The seven hottest years ever recorded have occurred in those nine years, as well, for a touch of local loss of colour, three gigantic bleachings of the Great Barrier Reef.
    I’m afraid the canard that global cooling to a new glaciation was the scientific consensus in the 70s is wrong. Even then many more scientists in the relevant fields expected a warming to occur, and that, according to the Milankovitch Cycles, a glaciation was a few thousand years away. The consensus that cooling was coming came simply from the media, a reliable source for not much at all, but in fact, less bad then than they are now.
    As for climate science being a pseudo-science compared to physics, well climate science in regard to greenhouse gases trapping re-radiated heat, IS physics. And need I stress that physics ever has and probably ever will have disputes, honest disputes unlike in regard to climate science, over ‘the facts’. By 1988 the consensus was very clear, and the heat in the USA merely served as a useful PR point, although the weight of fossil fuel industry disinformation and money, and the use of ideological division as a weapon in denialism, soon put paid to that.
    In fact, as we now know, the planet had generally cooled between the 40s and 80s, due to cyclical climate patterns and the growth of particulate smogs from post-war industrialisation which raised the planetary albedo in a global ‘dimming’. The 200 year trend to overall warming recommenced after c.1980 because of increased greenhouse gas emissions and reduced particulate smogs in the First World. Later the great smogs of east and south Asia would again cause a dimming, one that is currently masking 0.5 to 1.0 degrees C warming, already baked in.

    [MORE]

    The warming has accelerated as we have burned half the fossil fuels ever burned in the last few decades. Moreover positive feedbacks have reduced our ability to reverse the consequent warming, with warming oceans and soils emitting CO2, melting permafrost emitting greenhouse gases and organic matter for digestion by microbes and thus more greenhouse gases, and albedo flips in the Arctic north, from white reflective ice to dark, heat-absorbing seas.
    There is NO resemblance, I would say, between Saddam’s WMD lies, invented by tiny cabals, and climate science, created by tens of thousands of scientists. The true comparison, in my opinion, is between the purveyors of WMD lies, and the denialist industry, both basically Rightwing in ideology. Alex Cockburn, who died in 2012, was just incorrect, driven for some reason, and may, if he’d lived, have changed his mind as the evidence from reality has built up.
    The ‘experts’ are NOT ‘divided’. The few scientists associated with denialism all have well-known ideological biases or are on the denialist industry pay-roll. In comparison you have 99% of active climate scientists and ALL the Academies of Science and scientific societies on Earth concurring with the basic theory, which, of course, is always being improved, by research and observation. The changes in greenhouse emissions during the Great Depression, ninety years ago, are minuscule in comparison to the gigantic forcing of greenhouse gas emissions, ever accelerating, since WW2, therefore, I would argue, are irrelevant to our current predicament. And the emission of CO2 from the sea, a positive feedback, ought not to worry those who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    As for warming AFTER CO2 levels rise, that is the situation at the ends of glaciations when changes in the Milankovitch cycles cause the climate to gradually warm, and CO2, emitted through that warming, acts as a positive feedback to more warming, once again proving the role of increased greenhouse gas levels in warming. The situation now is the opposite. The forcing of CO2 and other greenhouse gases through human activities has come first, and is driving the warming.
    Arguing from other frauds is, I believe, completely erroneous. Those lies were the product of small cabals, not tens of thousands of scientists and the laws of physics. The true analogy is with the denialist industry, representing fossil fuel interests whose assets are valued in the tens of trillions and which underpin the stock markets, the financial system, and through ‘political contributions’, the political system. And, finally, ‘global warming’ is true in the medium term, but at present we are suffering global climate destabilisation as a result of the extra energy trapped in the Earth system. We see it every day in record deluges and floods, record intensities of precipitation (as the result of increased water vapour in the atmosphere due to warming, another powerful positive feedback, water vapour being a greenhouse gas, too), record droughts in intensity and duration and rapidity of onset (‘flash droughts’)record average temperatures and extreme temperatures, coral reef bleaching, megafires and cold excursions from frigid zones thanks to jet-stream derangement.
    There you have my position. I promise to play better in future and ignore the backward children. Promise.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  116. W says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    You gave a troll tag to someone that posted an accurate meme. That’s the butthurt response of a pseudo skeptic

    100% of climate destabilisation denialists (the Big Boys, not the lumpen dullards) say what their fossil fuel patrons want them to say. As for climate scientists, they get a wage, or would you Rightwing dullards prefer they work for nothing?

    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC

    I would prefer that they not repeat the horseshit that carbon dioxide is making the earth warmer.

    Tell us Einstein, how does Co2 make the earth warmer specifically?

    What is the temperature supposed to be?

    • Troll: Mulga Mumblebrain
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  117. W says:
    @Realist

    Sometimes minds that are too open, have a problem with things falling out…like logic.

    People who side with the official narrative are fond of this line.

    Open mindedness isn’t the amount of information or ideas that to believe, it’s the ability to challenge your preexisting beliefs.

    “Scientists” such as yourself have a difficult time unlearning the nonsense you were fed at college, your longer you’re indoctrinated the harder it is. That’s what makes you people closed minded.

    • Replies: @Realist
  118. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    I took chemistry and physics too. Not enough for a degree, but it’s not like it’s a mystery to me.

    The physics part sure appears to be the case.

    Anyone who would take such gobbledygook as this The other theory is that our solar system is externally powered with the sun as the focus and any nuclear activity in the sun is due to huge amounts of energy flowing into the sun from outside it. as serious sure missed something in physics. As hard as it is to accomplish your statement above makes Dark Energy and Dark Matter theory, String theory, and Multi-verse theory seem genius.

    There is so much evidence that stars produce energy through nuclear fusion induced by gravity, that to question it is pseudoscience.

    There are a number of problems with the Big Bang theory, but EU theory resolves none of them.

    When I chanced upon EU theory, it was like a door opened. Why not give it a try?

    Because it ranks right down there with L. Ron Hubbard crap.

    You did not answer my question Perhaps you can elucidate how plasma cosmology explains how the sun functions?. With some substantiation…not just platitudes

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  119. Realist says:
    @W

    “Scientists” such as yourself have a difficult time unlearning the nonsense you were fed at college, your longer you’re indoctrinated the harder it is. That’s what makes you people closed minded.

    Scientists like myself are able to think realistically and logically. That is what keeps us from taking such tripe, inane BS as this The other theory is that our solar system is externally powered with the sun as the focus and any nuclear activity in the sun is due to huge amounts of energy flowing into the sun from outside it. seriously and wasting our time.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  120. @Realist

    I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you. You’re so sure of your position that you won’t research it yourself, so there’s no point in making the attempt to educate you on other possibilities that you dismiss out of hand.

    You should realize that the Electric Universe community is full of PhD physicists and engineers of various disciplines. The IEEE, the largest professional organization in the world, backs EU theory. All these professionals were sharp enough to at least look at it and then decided it provided a better explanation for what actual evidence exists. They can explain what conventional science fobs off to dark energy, dark matter, black holes, etc without resorting to made up entities that no one has been able to find.

    Just the correct predictions EU advocates made for what space missions would find in sharp contrast to what the NASA folks thought should be enough to provide them a hearing. Look it up.

    • Replies: @Realist
  121. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    You should realize that the Electric Universe community is full of PhD physicists and engineers of various disciplines.

    It’s full of something, but not physicists Ph.D. or otherwise…most adherents are engineers, not scientists.

    Here is something for you to digest https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe#Supporters

    All people who believe in the scientific method will find the truth about EU here

    This version of Electric Universe makes more sense than yours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

    Just the correct predictions EU advocates made for what space missions would find in sharp contrast to what the NASA folks thought should be enough to provide them a hearing.

    When planning trips through space or orbits of satellites NASA uses the tried and true gravity equations provided by Newton and refined by Einstein.

    • LOL: RoatanBill
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  122. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    So, local authorities were not prepared for ‘one in a thousand years’ deluges, were they not?

    You can’t even keep your stories straight. In other posts, even in this thread, you constantly parrot the narrative that such events are becoming the norm with climate change. Miss Merkel puts out the same thing every other day. But she couldn’t, it seems, get her mitigation act together enough to lower the water levels in the local dams to accommodate the expected severe rains, even with about four days of warning from her forecasters. Those dams were full from a month of heavy rains. Nor could she get her mitigation act together enough to order an evacuation of the towns at risk and save several hundreds of lives. So she covered her incompetent ass by blaming climate change. As usual.

    As Merkel should know such storms hit Germany quite regularly on a more like a once in a century scale. The same rains caused the same flooding across the border in Holland. The authorities there, however, evacuated the affected villages and no one was killed. We had a similar flood in Canada a few years ago. The authorities in Calgary had lots of warning and evacuated the affected areas. Only one woman lost her life.

    Until a few years ago it was you warmists who told everyone not to confuse weather with climate. Then you “discovered” attribution theory and decided it would be more profitable to blame global warming for every adverse weather event. The distinction between weather and climate was then forthwith defenestrated.

    You tried it with Hurricane Katrina in 2005, telling us the Gulf coast was going to be pummeled with such storms from then on. That one didn’t work out so well as Katrina was the last hurricane to hit the Gulf Coast for about ten years. But you’re back at it again.

    • Troll: Mulga Mumblebrain
  123. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    As for warming AFTER CO2 levels rise, that is the situation at the ends of glaciations when changes in the Milankovitch cycles cause the climate to gradually warm, and CO2, emitted through that warming, acts as a positive feedback to more warming, once again proving the role of increased greenhouse gas levels in warming.

    Let’s just pass over that “once again proving” non-sequitur and focus on your “positive feedback”. You’ve described a classic runaway feedback loop and admitted that it can happen without human intervention. I note there is not a word about fossil fuels in that sentence, nor any implied connection to them.

    So Missn’t Mulga, do tell us why the world hasn’t gone into runaway warming, not even once, in the last 4 billion years. When geologists tell us the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was 7000 ppm just 500 million years ago.

    Why are we not as hot as Venus? As the air coming out of your mouth even.

    • Troll: Mulga Mumblebrain
  124. @Realist

    Scientists like myself are able to think realistically and logically. That is what keeps us from taking such tripe, inane BS as this The other theory is that our solar system is externally powered with the sun as the focus and any nuclear activity in the sun is due to huge amounts of energy flowing into the sun from outside it. seriously and wasting our time.

    You perhaps prefer the standard BS about the big bang and black holes, it seems? Tell us all about inflation theory, dark matter, dark energy, event horizons and alternative universes.

    To each his own BS, I guess. The theory you disparage is entirely consistent with Maxwell’s electricity and magnetism principles, which I studied to get my own honours degree in physics. It’s also consistent with the experimental finding that plasma phenomena are scalable to very many orders of magnitude.

    • Replies: @Realist
  125. @W

    I promised not to wrestle with moronic pigs anymore, lest I get covered in shite, so I won’t. Let me justsay, the cosmos won’t miss your type at all.

  126. @Realist

    Now that you’ve shown me the authoritative documentation from Wikipedia, I’ll immediately change my mind and become a closed minded drone for the establishment. LOL

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.
    Albert Einstein

    • Replies: @Realist
  127. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    As I have said there are a number of problems in current cosmology.

    The Big Bang theory has the singularity problem as does the theory of Black holes.

    Inconsistent measurements of the Hubble constant.

    Galaxy formation is not well understood…from observations and calculations, it seems many galaxies do not have enough mass to compensate for their angular momentum.

    There are others, but it appears that the problems may well lie in the observations themselves or their interpretations…and perhaps not in the equations of gravity. The equations for gravity work excellently in the near vicinity…it is only in the far off reaches of the universe…where observations are less than stellar (pun intended) that gravity seems to break down.

    At any rate, the Electric Universe theory does not resolve any of these cosmology problems.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  128. @Realist

    The equations for gravity work excellently in the near vicinity…it is only in the far off reaches of the universe…where observations are less than stellar (pun intended) that gravity seems to break down.

    My point exactly. At the larger scale, plasma takes over and by a wide margin.

    At any rate, the Electric Universe theory does not resolve any of these cosmology problems.

    Yes, it does, but you’re not interested in spending your time investigating it.

    • Replies: @Realist
  129. Realist says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    You perhaps prefer the standard BS about the big bang and black holes, it seems? Tell us all about inflation theory, dark matter, dark energy, event horizons and alternative universes.

    One of the big problems with jumping into a conversation that you have not been a part of is you look stupid.

    I have numerous times stated my misgivings about such theories as dark matter, dark energy, multiverse, and string. Instead of assuming you know my opinions on such issues, you should find out what I have said…it makes you look less stupid.

    See my most recent comment on this in my comment #131

    It’s also consistent with the experimental finding that plasma phenomena are scalable to very many orders of magnitude

    By all means, show experimental findings that show plasma phenomena are scalable to galactic or universe magnitude. And while you are at it show plasma cosmology/electric universe equations that replace modern gravity equations. And explain why NASA doesn’t use electric universe equations to put satellites in orbit, land on the moon, mars, or probes throughout the solar system?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  130. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    My point exactly. At the larger scale, plasma takes over and by a wide margin.

    You either didn’t pay any attention to my comment or chose to ignore my comments about observations may be the problem…NOT gravity equations…but it appears that the problems may well lie in the observations themselves or their interpretations…and perhaps not in the equations of gravity.

    Yes, it does, but you’re not interested in spending your time investigating it.

    State the electric universe equation that replaces the current gravity equation?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  131. @Realist

    Your problem is you don’t listen. There’s nothing wrong with the gravity equations. Yes, the interpretations are wrong at cosmological scales.

    You’re missing a larger picture and there’s nothing I can do to help you out but to suggest you investigate plasma cosmology and the electric universe theories yourself. It will take you a while to just get acquainted with the concepts and that’s not something anyone can just hand you on a plate.

    • Replies: @Realist
  132. @Realist

    And while you are at it show plasma cosmology/electric universe equations that replace modern gravity equations.

    Typical non-sequitur. Physics does not pretend to have an explanation for gravity. You just assume it will sometime be explained in terms of non-electromagnetic principles.

    It sounds like you agree that standard cosmological theory is BS. How about the greatest BS of all — inflation theory? But if you do, you just admit you prefer your own BS to Electric Universe BS.

    Quibbling about the upper limits of plasma scalability is a rather low form of argumentation. We can see huge structures in the far distances of the universe that look much like the plasma structures we see in the laboratory and have no other simple explanation.

    • Replies: @Realist
  133. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    This is going nowhere. We have reached an impasse.

  134. Realist says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Physics does not pretend to have an explanation for gravity.

    There sure as hell are equations for gravity…and they work beautifully. Where are the electric universe equations for gravity?

    It sounds like you agree that standard cosmological theory is BS.

    It seems you can’t read. I did not say the standard cosmological theory is BS…I said there are some problems with it.

    Quibbling about the upper limits of plasma scalability is a rather low form of argumentation.

    It’s not quibbling…it is at the very heart of the electric universe theory. You are evading the question because your dumbass theory is a failure.

    As I told RoatanBill we are at an impasse.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  135. @Realist

    There sure as hell are equations for gravity…and they work beautifully.

    They are phenomenological equations only, showing the force exerted on a body under gravitational influence. They were not developed using the so-called principles of establishment cosmology. If I remember, Isaac Newton had something to do with them, with a bit of help from Einstein. Both of those esteemed scientists knew nothing of big-bang or black-hole theory in coming up with their equations.

    You appear not to know the difference between a phenomenological description and an explanation in terms of underlying and independent entities or forces. Perhaps a remedial course in natural philosophy might be in order. What they called physics before success went to their heads.

    • Replies: @Realist
  136. Realist says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    You should quit when you are behind…I can not in good conscience continue to feed your eagerness to look stupid.

  137. @CelestiaQuesta

    Tesla did not die exactly penniless. He spent his twelve last years touring America fighting what as a scientist he had determined to be the biggest and most urgent to destroy fraud ever : Darwinian theory of evolution and formation of species. He rather spent up to his last penny and breath in that endeavour he conducted with utmost passion. He was eager to conduct his campaign using arguments only from science, predicting that if the US didn’t succeed in doing away with such a fallacy science as practiced by them would first stagnate and then regress, as submitting to such a fallacy was submitting to an unending chain of countless hoaxes and to the oligarchy organizing them. The US would first, while science was to stagnate, believe in more and more science fiction and in fake stories of space travel (Tesla believed in the possibility of travel to other planets but not by climbing into space as there is a shield) and then in decisions justified by that fictional science to make civilization regress technologically to Asian production mode.

  138. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    100% of “climate” scientists say what their alarmist kooks want them to say. Their wage depends on them parroting the same line. That’s not science, it’s not even logical. So-called “climate” scientists should be thrown out on the streets for violating the code of science.They are just shills for the crazies infesting society at this moment in time.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  139. @restless94110

    The world is awakening to the nightmare of climate destabilisation, rapidly worsening, and ghouls like you had better arrange the new identities and plastic surgery. People seeing their children sentenced to premature death can be so unforgiving.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  140. @mulga mumblebrain

    Stop yapping. As it gets colder every summer the only thing the world is waking up to is climate hoaxers like you. Since no one believes in anything you say, they just look on you as a deluded loon. Good luck to you.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Israel Shamir Comments via RSS