This one came out about two weeks ago, but should have a home here with the tribe.
Consensus should not be mistaken for the ultimate arbiter of truth. In fact, when we look back through history, many of the greatest scientific breakthroughs were once considered heretical ideas. As a result, relying on consensus has the potential to stifle innovation and impede scientific progress.
Enter Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Enjoy as Chris tears apart the entire idea of consensus within science and highlights how disgraceful Neil deGrasse Tyson really is in the name of science itself.
If Einstein was alive today, his theories on relativity would have been banned for not adhering to the Newtonian āscientific consensusā. Nothing new or different ever adheres to the āscientific consensusā, until it does.
Galileo is the poster child of the āscientific consensusā getting it wrong.
I am going to point hereā¦ Both do not matter!!
Del, you had your chance and you could have destroyed his arguments, but you blew it.
Start off by asking some basic questions:
What is a consensus?
How does a consensus ensure all of those agreeing are actually based on repeated logical conclusion, and not some other type of conclusion, such as a social in crowd consensus?
Has consensus every failed us in the past?
What if we completely ignore what others think, and simply retrace the logic and the data? Do we get to the same conclusion?
Was Really Rooting For Tyson, But He Disappoints On Climate Change And Covid
I love the Carl Sagan Cosmos series from the 1970s and bought the updated series on disc to show my kids. I had high hopes for the new series but it didnāt make the same impression. Tyson has really embraced both the man-made climate change and COVID narratives and canāt seem to hold an independent thought.
In contrast, Jordan Petersen recently did a series of interviews with leading climate change scientists that arenāt afraid to speak their mind. I put the links and my cliff note versions of the discussions below. I captured the credentials mostly for use in debate with blue-pilled people.
Dr. Richard Linden on climate science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LVSrTZDopM
Academic credentials prof at MIT, Harvard.
Richard Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist. He has contributed to the development of theories for the Hadley Circulation, hydrodynamic instability theory, internal gravity waves, atmospheric tides, and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the stratosphere. His current research is focused on climate sensitivity, the role of cirrus clouds in climate, and the determination of the tropics-to-pole temperature difference. He has attained multiple degrees from Harvard University, and won multiple awards in his field of study such as the Jule Charney award for āhighly significant research in the atmospheric sciencesā. Between 1983 and 2013, he was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT where he earned emeritus status in July of 2013.
Was a lead author on the IPCC science report.
Greenhouse effect limited to the tropics and not an existential threat
No tipping points/runaway feedback
Mean temperature is a flawed metric as reported. The measured and predicted changes in mean temperature are tiny compared to the natural temperature variations at any given point on the planet.
The models are unable to accurately account for the complexity of the system (e.g. fluid dynamics) and make a lot of assumptions. Many models runaway and have to introduce artificial damping to prevent this which is not based on physical reality.
Politicians base their policy on scientific summaries written by politicians. This creates alarm where none is warranted.
We might have a climate problem in 5000 years and not due to the actions of man, but rather to orbital variations of the earth. (1:05:20)
Impact of CO2 is 2 watts/sq. Meter
Impact of orbital variations (solar radiation) is 100 watts / sq. Meter
Politics is driving the science
Clinton increased funding by 15x which has attracted a lot of unqualified people to the field that are chasing the funding.
You only get funding if you support the political narrative
If you try to publish papers that contradict the narrative you are blocked.
The 97% of scientists agree claim is bogus.
Yes scientists agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
No scientists do not agree on feedback loops, tipping points, sea level rise, that the warming is threat.
Dr. Steven Koonin on energy production, climate change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reaABJ5HpLk
Academic/Corporate/Govt credentials at Caltech, MIT, NYU, LLNL, BP
Dr. Steven Koonin, a University Professor at NYU, has served as the Department of Energyās Under Secretary for Science, as Chief Scientist for BP, and as professor and Provost at Caltech. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a Governor of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a senior fellow of Stanfordās Hoover Institution, and a Trustee of the Institute for Defense Analyses. Koonin holds a BS in physics from Caltech and a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from MIT. He wrote the recent bestseller āUnsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesnāt, and Why It Matters.ā
Energy / scale
43:00 Climate
IPCC
57:45 Climate models
How they work
Human influences are small 1% effect
Earths surface temp is 300K, we are looking at temperature changes of 2 degrees, again 1% effect.
Not trying to model climate but human influences on the climate which is order of magnitude more difficult.
Looking over 100-150 year timescale, have terrible data about the past, especially in the oceans.
1:02 Nuclear Energy
90 big plants in the US.
10-20B upfront investment
Impacts of Climate Change: Perception and Reality, Dr Indur Goklany
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/02/Goklany-EmpiricalTrends.pdf
Narrative vs. reality:
More hot days and fewer cold days ā Yes
Cyclones/hurricanes more intense or frequent ā No
Tornadoes increase and become more intense ā No
Floods more frequent and more intense ā No
Droughts more frequent and intense ā No
Area burned by wildfire increasing ā No (area peaked in mid-19th century)
Cereal yields decreasing ā No (they have tripled since 1961)
Food supplies per capita decreasing ā No (increased 31 per cent since 1961)
Land area and beaches shrinking, coral islands submerged ā No. (Marginal expansion)
Credentials: He was a member of the U.S. delegation that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a U.S. delegate to the IPCC, and as an IPCC reviewer.
The opposite of science is consensus. Science is no more and no less than using the scientific method to arrive at scientific truth. Data based, verifiable, reproducible and transparent, so that anyone in the world can repeat your experiment and have the same results. When he discusses consensus, deGrasse isnāt really talking about science, but rather a faith-based and hierarchal system. To me it looks like heās completely lost his mind.
I know how science became corrupted. A few years ago I was helping a friend write a grant proposal to study how and where ebola hides in the environment. In doing so, we included CVs of people interested in working on the project, and every one had a tortured committment-to-diversity statement. WTF? Iād been away from grant writing for a several years so it was all new to me, and shocking. Because the only real and true diversity is of the mind and heartā¦it has nothing to do with race, sex, age, or any other physical characteristic because the quality of an individualās mind has nothing to do with whatever groups they are part of biologically. But here were all these CVs from men and women of science blabbering on about their support for a very crude type of diversity, in which every group must include at least one or two vaginas, one or two people with high levels of melanin in their skin, and one or two people who prefer sex with members of their own sex. As if any of those characteristics had anything to do with the quality of a personās mind or their work! My friend explained that the diversity proclamation was now de riguer for all scientists seeking grants. Kind of like a āHeil, Hitlerā salute was required of anyone in the reich. He didnāt have a diversity statement on his CV because he wasnāt going to express support for fake diversity. He knew the scientists whose CVs we were looking at, and they didnāt āreallyā support fake diversity either, they were just saying it because you had to, to get work. Unfortunately, this is how the world ends. When people bend the knee to things they donāt really believe in, they degrade their own moral sense and their ability to navigate the world. And history shows that the next crazy ass cultural dictate they are pre-bended forā¦and so on and so on until all the atrocities and genocide, and the bloody and painful fight for a return to common sense and individual rights.
When he discusses consensus, deGrasse isnāt really talking about science, but rather a faith-based and hierarchal system.
That is true.
The "Enlightenment" was supposed to replace an unaccountable priesthood with a empirical system that everyone could verify. But we ended up with a new unaccountable priesthood.
Now, instead of priests interpreting a bible written in Latin, the new priesthood claims the right to rule the masses based on a claimed "special knowledge" unavailable to citizenry at large. This is the very same "elitist" arrangement that did not work in the Middle Ages. And this new arrangement is every bit as corrupted, political and dissembling as the old one.
We have simply circled back to the point and place of beginning.
I was rooting for them to a little bit. But Iāve noticed heās been a pompous ass, obnoxious really. I am unclear as to how intelligent he really is in his field in science in things. I donāt want to respect any degrees or PhDās he may have Iām not sure. But his performance on Del Bigtree Highwire left a lot to be desired! And when he started arguing the consensus thing I got the distinct impression he just pulled that out of his ass because he didnāt like the hot seat. Men sit on the hot seat and donāt mind or at least the deal . They are made much stronger, better wiser, and more trustworthy for it. Why is everyone over there in that stupid world of a bubble in science and finance with elite people running around making everything look sexy. These fuckers have removed the manly men as best they can, and the essence of it, itās all gone. Take the heat and be freaking wrong. Whatās the big deal!??
All that differentiation between cases has further qualifiers that need to be called outā¦
Iām referring to what is likely half of all the numbers that I am surmising can simply be washed away. They donāt exist. And thatās all the people that appear to have the infection, but because the PCR and or the testing in general was picking up as little as fragments and/or it was a fully a false oisitive. Did they even have an anctuve ācaseā? NO, is the answer with half of all numbers. Thatās the presumption I have as a baseline. I donāt know if thatās true, I would love other peoples thoughts on just thatā¦
They, the life sucking scum-maggots, knew what they were doing. Getting the numbers up high to keep everyone afraid. Thatās always their MO. So again the bottom line question is, how many of those ācasesā were literally not cases, but rather fragments, and blurred possibilities of a case??
Bottom line, the number of people that died as a direct downline result of having actually contracted and been sick from Covid, that number is as low as 50,000. Maybe less. and the murder rate for the lack of early treatment and intervention is white? 80% murdered because the withholding of early intervention? Again I donāt know Iām working inside my own experience set, so please challenge what Iām saying, corrected finesse it, mention stuff, whateverā¦
When you say nobody dies of Covid. Can you tease that out even if itās totally subjective, to arrange of totally died because of rapid onset of downline conditions that killed the person. All the way down to had nothing to do with it, that they had Covid or the appearance of Covid from a bogus PCR test. If you could finesse it out a little bit more Chris, I think it would be really helpful. Get that stream of consciousness of yours going and and out will come good stuff. It always does!
Thereās A Human Design Answer For What This Mind Virus Is Being Fueled By
The Human Design BodyGraph has nine active energy centers, they are very much the organs and processes in our body. Three of them come to mind as I hear Chris talking about āthe mind virusā.
The Head center, Ajlana, and Heart center aka the Ego. Humanity is riddled with the majority of people that have these centers open. It makes them incredibly susceptible to not wanting to be seen as uncertain, thinking about things that donāt matter, and allowing that to confuse things to a point where they just want a consensus so that they can stop thinking about things that donāt matter. Thatās the Head and Ajna . And then the open ego which desperately wants to prove itās right to prove it can compete, and it feels like crap the whole time. It feels its self less worthy if somehow or other, it has to change its tune. Add it all up and you get confusion about too many things that doesnāt want to appear in certain so it sticks to a mind virus consensus that canāt bare to be proven wrong. Thatās literally how that works out.
Heās also no Carl Sagan, but he is bright enough to know the party line.
He knows the width of the scientific Overton window and is sure to keep his face squarely in the middle.
Heās not a scientist, heās a PR flack.
I remember him being real smug about Pluto being declassified as a planet kind of like āBecause I said soā. It just has been reinstated as a planet, thatās the scientific consensus, thatās what matters. He seems to be in love with his own voice.
The timing of this situation is fascinating:
On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church.
A scientist creates a hypothesis and goes to a two story window of his house. He begins to throw objects out of his bedroom window and notices everything he throws out his window hit the ground. He askes all his friends to replicate this and they all agree. After throwing many things out the window and witnessing this truth they came to consensus; If you throw things out the window they fall and hit the ground. Itās āthe scienceā at work. One friend decided to throw a birthday balloon out the window. The consensus decided to say well we canāt all be wrong. We followed āthe scienceā. Lets ignore the balloon scenario.
I thought Del was brilliantā¦ā¦got him in the trap and took him downā¦.
Del has the best newscast out there right nowā¦.the Jackson report is always fact filled and ahead of other reportingā¦.
Remember that this was a live interview and Del couldnāt totally control the direction of the dialogue ā¦.especially considering Tysonās huge ego.