Sunday, 3 November 2013

Quotes and confessions

Moving from precedents, confessions are the verbal/evidential equivalent. Where someone in authority makes a statement of fact or intention, rather than opinion, it is a direct expression of certainty, one which exposes new information, often turning suspicions into knowns.

I have many examples on my fraud blog here but a few choice examples pretty much blew apart any credibility in global warming, not by science but by admitting it's nothing to do with the science. Back in 1974 Margaret Mead and Stephen Schneider produced material from an early Green Movement meeting, notably before global warming had been raised. But they already said they needed the threat of an environmental crisis to reorder the world, and required false statements to cause fear in the public to bring these changes about. Funtowicz and Ravetz formalised it as 'Post-Normal Science', lying to further the cause, and the Club of Rome's statement in 1996 stated exactly this, create the fear of shortages and global warming and you can make the public do whatever you want.

In a 2010 statement to a German Magazine, the UN IPCC economist and lead reviewer Ottmar Edenhofer, clearly stated this is no longer about the environment but economic redistribution.

Technically now it doesn't really matter what new data scientists keep turning out, most of which is contradictory and far too short term or vague to mean a thing anyway, as the politicians they are all paid by and working for have already said it's a means to control the masses. The secondary mafiosa application of omerta has so far guaranteed none of these quotes have individually, let alone collectively as I do regularly, hit the press.

There are graded strata of discovery in the human mental process. On hearing such a piece the believers would be sorted into a standard range of reactions. One section would instantly feel totally cheated and join the other side immediately, declaring all out war on their manipulators. The next would become doubtful and start looking for more evidence, the next would still believe but think it was a mad fringe but the science spoke for itself and not important if some people wanted to use it for their own ends, and the hard core (which sadly may still remain the vast majority) who dismiss it entirely.

But in a fair world wouldn't they at least be given the chance to know?

No comments:

Post a Comment