SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 11-05-18, 04:07 PM

Neither me nor anyone else here said what you put in my or our mouths.

While being a strong defender of scientific approaches and methody, I must admit and have often complained about scientifc everyday busienss, the academic business, is deeply corrupted b unserious methodology, lobby interest, finacial pressure, prestige craving. Especially in climate science, there is a merciless war going on against every heretic daring to doubt the dogmna, with now being dogma what secures this branch the most of possible public attention and financial funding.

I do not go into specific scientific details, for I amdit I do not have all of them always ready in my mind, able to call them up as if reading them out of a book. But what i do remember is the many opportunities when over the past years I have read about it for sure, and saw my questions forming up and my doubts mounting.

Critical issues get most unseriously, even underhandedly dealt with in this branch of science. Propaganda trumps everything, and already since many years before Trump.

A critical book by German. I find this one outstandingly good. Thats why I referred to it severla times before in past years.

https://www.amazon.de/%C3%96ko-Nihil...6ko-nihilismus

Or the IPCC reports. Since many years they have detoriated into tools by which a global financial redistribution scheme gets established, of highly questionable goals and means. The scientific basis for the data they base their yearly reports on is blind on one eye and extremely selective, and the gang behind them has become more and more bigot and intolerant against anyone questioning their dogma, while the figures at the top often are shady and dubious, at least quite some of them.

I have said it many times, the academic business is deeply corrupted and abusive today, and ecology is no exception from this unfortunate rule. And greenish idealism is not holy in itself, in fact it often is as one-sided and blind and unfounded as the lobby and the ideas of those it claims to "demask".

Do not trust them as blindly as you seem to do. The older I got, the more I understood one thing: the louder some messiahs want to save the world, the more they just are about wanting to have power over you and make you do what they demand you to do, to form a uniform collecxtiuve of theirs where everybody must live by their rules. May it be food and health, may it be ecology, may it be social "solidarity", may it be migration activists - you name it. This does not mean the lobbies on the other side of the frontlines are better. They are most likely not. It just means I do not trust any of them all. I look as far as I can overlook my life, I sort what I see, I form an opinion, I make a decison, and I live with its consequences, living my life - and mine exclusively.

We burn too much money for the wrong things when it comes to future security and ecology. For nothing but illusions we do so, to wallow in our self-satisfied emotions over that. And:

WE ARE TOO MANY.

All talking about future sustainability and environmental proteciton is just babbling hot air as long as we have almost 8 billion people crawling on this planet. The biggest problem ther eis - is the mere size of human population itself.

Bring it down to 1- 1.5 billion. Then we can start to be serious. Until then we just kill time, burn money, and do intellectual vademecuum-yoga to ease our conscience.

11-05-18, 04:07 PM	#10
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,643 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Neither me nor anyone else here said what you put in my or our mouths. While being a strong defender of scientific approaches and methody, I must admit and have often complained about scientifc everyday busienss, the academic business, is deeply corrupted b unserious methodology, lobby interest, finacial pressure, prestige craving. Especially in climate science, there is a merciless war going on against every heretic daring to doubt the dogmna, with now being dogma what secures this branch the most of possible public attention and financial funding. I do not go into specific scientific details, for I amdit I do not have all of them always ready in my mind, able to call them up as if reading them out of a book. But what i do remember is the many opportunities when over the past years I have read about it for sure, and saw my questions forming up and my doubts mounting. Critical issues get most unseriously, even underhandedly dealt with in this branch of science. Propaganda trumps everything, and already since many years before Trump. A critical book by German. I find this one outstandingly good. Thats why I referred to it severla times before in past years. https://www.amazon.de/%C3%96ko-Nihil...6ko-nihilismus Or the IPCC reports. Since many years they have detoriated into tools by which a global financial redistribution scheme gets established, of highly questionable goals and means. The scientific basis for the data they base their yearly reports on is blind on one eye and extremely selective, and the gang behind them has become more and more bigot and intolerant against anyone questioning their dogma, while the figures at the top often are shady and dubious, at least quite some of them. I have said it many times, the academic business is deeply corrupted and abusive today, and ecology is no exception from this unfortunate rule. And greenish idealism is not holy in itself, in fact it often is as one-sided and blind and unfounded as the lobby and the ideas of those it claims to "demask". Do not trust them as blindly as you seem to do. The older I got, the more I understood one thing: the louder some messiahs want to save the world, the more they just are about wanting to have power over you and make you do what they demand you to do, to form a uniform collecxtiuve of theirs where everybody must live by their rules. May it be food and health, may it be ecology, may it be social "solidarity", may it be migration activists - you name it. This does not mean the lobbies on the other side of the frontlines are better. They are most likely not. It just means I do not trust any of them all. I look as far as I can overlook my life, I sort what I see, I form an opinion, I make a decison, and I live with its consequences, living my life - and mine exclusively. We burn too much money for the wrong things when it comes to future security and ecology. For nothing but illusions we do so, to wallow in our self-satisfied emotions over that. And: WE ARE TOO MANY. All talking about future sustainability and environmental proteciton is just babbling hot air as long as we have almost 8 billion people crawling on this planet. The biggest problem ther eis - is the mere size of human population itself. Bring it down to 1- 1.5 billion. Then we can start to be serious. Until then we just kill time, burn money, and do intellectual vademecuum-yoga to ease our conscience. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 11-05-18 at 05:02 PM.