Denial And Scepticism
Too often there is an apparent confusion between the description of denial and scepticism, but this is simply a distinction. It separates the deniers: those who refuse to review a belief even when faced with incontrovertible evidence that leads to a (possibly) different conclusion and the sceptics who are those that challenge and don't just roll over and agree with the authority of anonymous 'scientists'. Usually poor (and often cherry-picked) 'evidence' is brought out to promote a belief while ignoring 'facts' that don't fit. Insulting, nauseating and pathetic 'arguments' are bandied about in the attempt to ridicule and make a predefined conclusion.
Death threat if you dare to deny
There are always two sides to a coin and alternative explanation often exists that can challenge belief. This does not of itself refuse to accept the claims of deniers, but simply explores issues in greater depth. If the beliefs turn into more hardened fact as evidence supports the claims of deniers, the sceptics may turn into 'believers'. But only when the evidence demands it. All the evidence and not just selected supportive 'evidence'.
Axial Tilt
Polar Ice
Sometimes this is simply an uninformed belief, though can be more sinister and involve politics and ultimately money acquisition. The amount of finances raised at the expense of taxpayers around the world regarding climate change over the last few years is incalculable, but must have reached $£trillions. And much based on very poor, weak and often wrong information and the process is completely recursive: a justification rolled out that generates more finance and paid for by the very people who are allegedly in need of (unchallenged) protection. They are not asked, but just told that they are in danger and forced to make payment through taxes and consumer goods. It's technically fraud based on a lie, though the cynical process cannot be tested. The theory is all unproven. It's the classic circular system that traps everything within it. Neatly contained within the box.
The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Scepticism
Should the announcement ever be made that an asteroid is (allegedly, but with unquestionably non-massaged evidence) on a direct collision course with Earth, the financial yield would make the climate change fiasco relatively insignificant. By definition the alleged asteroid would have to be years away on a possible intercept course, so that $trillions could be spent on the 'necessary' defence provision to void impending doom. If so, it would (almost certainly) be a fraud. It is still commonly believed that Man himself, not just his machines, has actually been to the Moon. Back in the 1960s the cost was never even questioned but simply accepted. Wars are still started to sell weapons and raise finance. No war, no marketplace to peddle the wares of ordnance manufacture. Wars are the instruments which justify their existence. More recursion.
Death threat if you dare to deny
There are always two sides to a coin and alternative explanation often exists that can challenge belief. This does not of itself refuse to accept the claims of deniers, but simply explores issues in greater depth. If the beliefs turn into more hardened fact as evidence supports the claims of deniers, the sceptics may turn into 'believers'. But only when the evidence demands it. All the evidence and not just selected supportive 'evidence'.
Axial Tilt
Polar Ice
Sometimes this is simply an uninformed belief, though can be more sinister and involve politics and ultimately money acquisition. The amount of finances raised at the expense of taxpayers around the world regarding climate change over the last few years is incalculable, but must have reached $£trillions. And much based on very poor, weak and often wrong information and the process is completely recursive: a justification rolled out that generates more finance and paid for by the very people who are allegedly in need of (unchallenged) protection. They are not asked, but just told that they are in danger and forced to make payment through taxes and consumer goods. It's technically fraud based on a lie, though the cynical process cannot be tested. The theory is all unproven. It's the classic circular system that traps everything within it. Neatly contained within the box.
The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Scepticism
Should the announcement ever be made that an asteroid is (allegedly, but with unquestionably non-massaged evidence) on a direct collision course with Earth, the financial yield would make the climate change fiasco relatively insignificant. By definition the alleged asteroid would have to be years away on a possible intercept course, so that $trillions could be spent on the 'necessary' defence provision to void impending doom. If so, it would (almost certainly) be a fraud. It is still commonly believed that Man himself, not just his machines, has actually been to the Moon. Back in the 1960s the cost was never even questioned but simply accepted. Wars are still started to sell weapons and raise finance. No war, no marketplace to peddle the wares of ordnance manufacture. Wars are the instruments which justify their existence. More recursion.
- Prediction (DA): in not too many years ahead, an asteroid (Near-Earth object) will be discovered that endangers the 'home' planet. This could happen either before or after the financial systems have stabilised (they won't, of course, as the growth in population/consumers ensures). If before, the (fabricated) effect would be catastrophic, but if after then the world would be deemed to be able to afford another crisis - just BIGGER than the last one and would serve the 'top-of-the-pyramid' greed culture. Created totally from a very convenient lie. This 'asteroid' could have already been 'discovered', but only drawn onto some imaginary plan currently being prepared and just waiting to be rolled out at some time in the untestable future.
posted by Louis Brothnias at
1:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home