I am a financial adviser and when I first came into the industry many, many years ago I started collecting, every December, the outlook for the next year for financial markets. I quickly realised that these forecasts from the world's largest financial companies amounted to nothing more than 'we are going to see the same trend ie more of what is happening right now'. None of them saw the credit crunch coming. It turned out, upon further delving, that at a psychological level it is better to go with the crowd and be wrong collectively rather than be the one contra voice who might get a forecast wrong and be scoffed at ever more which could also result in loss of future career opportunities. No doubt the same in climate science although worse because it has become something of a religion.
A most perceptive comment! I wonder if aborrhance of the contra voice is innate in all of us or something that society deliberately conditions and fosters? If the latter is this something that naturally drops out of the structure that has developed or is it the work of hidden hands? Worth munching on a mince pie!
Yes John, but what is driving the police to arrest a woman for silently praying outside an abortion clinic? I don't think her views are totally right or totally wrong and I have no religion, but where is our country heading?
- sorry O/T but relevant all the same, you can't even think for yourself now and Patricia's comments (and yours) are very relevant to the climate field and have been for 25 years at least.
As it so happens I was watching that clip just a few moments ago and wondering what the heck it was all about. As a G7 scientist back in the '90s I worked closely with all police forces to the level of ACC and spent a great deal of time in various police HQs, and I can tell you this sort of thing comes as a shock to see.
I gather the police responded to complaints from an onlooker but the thing to note is that in English Law abortion clinics are protected by a buffer zone in which any form of protest (even just standing silently) is illegal. It seems the local authority has gone one further by declaring a 'censorship zone' in which all acts of disapproval are taboo, including prayer.
This is a microcosm of what is happening on a bigger scale, with both central and local authorities becoming a law unto themselves with impunity; that is, democracy and justice no longer function. In this regard what is more worrying are the conditions of bail that specify Vaughan-Spruce must not engage in public prayer beyond the censorship zone - these conditions we set by the local force but I'm not certain they are within their rights to do so.
Big picturewise we'll see more of this Orwellian jackboot since religion and spiritual beliefs, along with sexual identity, family values, health and autonomy are what the globalists are trying to crush.
I suspect that it is all about the social cost to the individual. The fear of not being part of the established and, by inference, accepted order. No doubt there is a primal advantage to being part of the crowd when being stalked by a predator but in the modern world it seems the crowd and groupthink will be our undoing. I recently bought a book entitled 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' written originally in 1841 which is a study of crowd psychology by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay so I am trying to educate myself further. Whatever the roots of this bias we can be sure that those in power, the globalists, waste no opportunity to exploit every aspect of our human vulnerabilities for nefarious purposes.
10 to 20 years ago I used to give the odd short lecture at U3A Science & Tech groups and similar ( I am a bog standard Met Guy). I took to prefacing my presentations with a statement appealing to those present to recognise that what I was showing was official commonly agreed data, not contentious or opinion. Even so I would receive abuse because the data would show things, like the extent of Arctic sea Ice, that would be contrary to the "approved" perception. And remember that most of those attending have science or engineering backgrounds and a lifetime of application. If you can't show an engineer empirical data without pushback!!??
This pretty much sums up my experience, which is why I no longer engage in debate and focus on research topics of interest for those still interested in gaining knowledge. The vitriol Tony Heller gets on his Twitter feed is quite astonishing to behold, with precious little holding any scientific value. We have grown men acting like playground bullies!
This indicates to me that people are acting from a position of very deep (subconscious?) insecurity; a position so deep that it becomes an existential issue. Reason becomes the first victim for somebody drowning, and drowning people are dangerous souls to those who attempt to save them.
The situation is part illusion fanned by modern media and part reality in that the world is intrinsically not a safe place and never was. Neither has our society and infrastructure been built on solid foundations (one decent X-class flare will see to that!). I thus see climate alarmists, whether well-educated or not, as children wrapping themselves in a fictional comfort blanket. Things will only change when sufficient ordinary folk feel the pinch personally.
Your discussions are so interesting. I have only recently begun to question the climate 'consensus', thanks to John Dee, and a friend (retired scientist) who put together a paper - not for publication. I have to say, I am more comfortable putting forward alternative views about the covid nonsense, than I am about the climate. In fact I haven't yet dared! It seems to me that this has always been the way that humans operate. Sticking one's head above the parapet is always asking for trouble. If something can't be questioned, it must be suspect.
I am a financial adviser and when I first came into the industry many, many years ago I started collecting, every December, the outlook for the next year for financial markets. I quickly realised that these forecasts from the world's largest financial companies amounted to nothing more than 'we are going to see the same trend ie more of what is happening right now'. None of them saw the credit crunch coming. It turned out, upon further delving, that at a psychological level it is better to go with the crowd and be wrong collectively rather than be the one contra voice who might get a forecast wrong and be scoffed at ever more which could also result in loss of future career opportunities. No doubt the same in climate science although worse because it has become something of a religion.
A most perceptive comment! I wonder if aborrhance of the contra voice is innate in all of us or something that society deliberately conditions and fosters? If the latter is this something that naturally drops out of the structure that has developed or is it the work of hidden hands? Worth munching on a mince pie!
Yes John, but what is driving the police to arrest a woman for silently praying outside an abortion clinic? I don't think her views are totally right or totally wrong and I have no religion, but where is our country heading?
- sorry O/T but relevant all the same, you can't even think for yourself now and Patricia's comments (and yours) are very relevant to the climate field and have been for 25 years at least.
As it so happens I was watching that clip just a few moments ago and wondering what the heck it was all about. As a G7 scientist back in the '90s I worked closely with all police forces to the level of ACC and spent a great deal of time in various police HQs, and I can tell you this sort of thing comes as a shock to see.
I gather the police responded to complaints from an onlooker but the thing to note is that in English Law abortion clinics are protected by a buffer zone in which any form of protest (even just standing silently) is illegal. It seems the local authority has gone one further by declaring a 'censorship zone' in which all acts of disapproval are taboo, including prayer.
This is a microcosm of what is happening on a bigger scale, with both central and local authorities becoming a law unto themselves with impunity; that is, democracy and justice no longer function. In this regard what is more worrying are the conditions of bail that specify Vaughan-Spruce must not engage in public prayer beyond the censorship zone - these conditions we set by the local force but I'm not certain they are within their rights to do so.
Big picturewise we'll see more of this Orwellian jackboot since religion and spiritual beliefs, along with sexual identity, family values, health and autonomy are what the globalists are trying to crush.
I suspect that it is all about the social cost to the individual. The fear of not being part of the established and, by inference, accepted order. No doubt there is a primal advantage to being part of the crowd when being stalked by a predator but in the modern world it seems the crowd and groupthink will be our undoing. I recently bought a book entitled 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' written originally in 1841 which is a study of crowd psychology by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay so I am trying to educate myself further. Whatever the roots of this bias we can be sure that those in power, the globalists, waste no opportunity to exploit every aspect of our human vulnerabilities for nefarious purposes.
Have we started coming slowly to our senses? Well I suppose there are a few us.
This article by Tony B at What's Up With That 14 years ago shows the battle for truth was lost a long time ago.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
10 to 20 years ago I used to give the odd short lecture at U3A Science & Tech groups and similar ( I am a bog standard Met Guy). I took to prefacing my presentations with a statement appealing to those present to recognise that what I was showing was official commonly agreed data, not contentious or opinion. Even so I would receive abuse because the data would show things, like the extent of Arctic sea Ice, that would be contrary to the "approved" perception. And remember that most of those attending have science or engineering backgrounds and a lifetime of application. If you can't show an engineer empirical data without pushback!!??
This pretty much sums up my experience, which is why I no longer engage in debate and focus on research topics of interest for those still interested in gaining knowledge. The vitriol Tony Heller gets on his Twitter feed is quite astonishing to behold, with precious little holding any scientific value. We have grown men acting like playground bullies!
This indicates to me that people are acting from a position of very deep (subconscious?) insecurity; a position so deep that it becomes an existential issue. Reason becomes the first victim for somebody drowning, and drowning people are dangerous souls to those who attempt to save them.
The situation is part illusion fanned by modern media and part reality in that the world is intrinsically not a safe place and never was. Neither has our society and infrastructure been built on solid foundations (one decent X-class flare will see to that!). I thus see climate alarmists, whether well-educated or not, as children wrapping themselves in a fictional comfort blanket. Things will only change when sufficient ordinary folk feel the pinch personally.
Your discussions are so interesting. I have only recently begun to question the climate 'consensus', thanks to John Dee, and a friend (retired scientist) who put together a paper - not for publication. I have to say, I am more comfortable putting forward alternative views about the covid nonsense, than I am about the climate. In fact I haven't yet dared! It seems to me that this has always been the way that humans operate. Sticking one's head above the parapet is always asking for trouble. If something can't be questioned, it must be suspect.
No business like snow business. :D