LOL - I'll sort the buggers out! I speak from personal experience when I say these talking heads are usually as thick as shit. In fact, they are selected for their dense quality and big mouth - the brainy bit goes on behind closed doors and involves nameless suits.
Thank goodness we have no tv, missed that. Oh My!!! Hopefully they get so hysterical that soon nobody will be able to miss that they're criminally insane.
I was just about to comment on your previous article about yesterday’s feverish reporting on the BBC
“July is "virtually certain" to be the world's warmest month on record, say scientists
The month has been so hot worldwide, that researchers are confident the 2019 record will be broken
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres says the era of "global boiling" has arrived
Meanwhile, US President Joe Biden describes climate change as an "existential threat" - and says the Miami ocean is like a hot tub
Heatwaves in Europe and the US have sparked fresh warnings about climate change”
Clearly all this stuff is globally co-ordinated but with what aim? Even if you believe in all this human CO2 causes global catastrophe nonsense, the path to net zero is supposed to take 30 years or 40 years if you’re China and India. What is the point of stirring up the masses to such an extent? The masses in the UK are missing out on all this boiling and are watching cricketers dodging showers.
It makes me think that the globalist powers that be are planning something crazy like Gates’s sun dimming and geo-engineering.
The main aim is to prop up the fiat petrodollar and the globalist empire that feeds from this by any and all means, including placing humanity into deep slavery. Invisible enemies are needed lest folk rumble the game, for without mindless compliance all plans would come to naught. Climate, like COVID, is thus a preliminary exercise in mass compliance and re-education. In essence, the natural world is to become our enemy from which we need saving (though monetisation and regulation). Back when I rubbed shoulders with 'suits' the plan was to promote the green agenda in full knowledge that it would fail to meet energy needs, ideally failing catastrophically to create total dependency on the State.
Wow. Is there something funny in those cakes you’re baking?
By the way, I checked my year 7 daughter’s geography school book for climate lessons. It seems they looked at the pros and cons of renewables and fossil fuels. So it looked quite balanced to me.
Sounds crazy I know but back in the '90s I was one of the G7 scientists supporting the policy teams that were drawing up broad-brush plans to take the UK through to 2050. These were supposed to be think pieces so it's rather alarming to see some of them coming to fruition, 15-minute cities being one example. Another think piece was the banning of all petrol/diesel vehicles, starting with private use. Coupled to this was change in land use legislation that restricted where people were permitted to live and work. The target UK population we were given was 23M. Documents were being funnelled up to EU strategic teams, and then to DETR policy divisions when that was formed in 1997. I didn't like what I was seeing and hearing so walked away in 2000.
I guess they chose that figure because that’s what it was in 1840 at the end of the Industrial Revolution. It’s gone up by 10 million since 1997. Do you know if those papers are accessible to the public?
Official files containing correspondence, memos, minutes, reports etc that were held by myself were destroyed at resignation, with my hard drive being wiped by IT, so nothing now remains.
So 15 minute cities are a 1990s idea that pre-dated Elon Musk. The thing is there is no need for them if all personal transportation is zero emission and road pricing replaces vehicle duties. Living close to your work makes sense if possible (who loves commuting?) but technology has already solved that for the laptop classes. In the UK, planning regulations are based on zoning of industry, offices, residential which prevents wholesale changes but there are some relaxations going on with offices converting to residential etc. Farming gets more efficient so return some fields to woodland and manage it.
I have always believed the there will be technological solutions but they won’t be discovered by politicians, lobbyists, journalists or committees. They will come out of universities, startups, industrial R&D and Mr Smith tinkering in his garden shed.
Yes, not a new idea but we didn't call them 15-minute cities back then, they were just zoned areas with much better planning, themed use and integrated infrastructure. These were not for local councils to decide willy-nilly, and we didn't bank on the rise of virtue signalling. None of these radical ideas were driven by the emerging AGW movement, being economic and genuinely ecological at heart. In the late '90s things were already going sour as evidence-based policies gave way to political shenanigans. Instead of leading a team of scientists and technology officers undertaking research I was told what results we were to obtain or suffer loss of funding. At one point I had one policy 'suit' sit and draw a graph and tell me this is precisely what my team had to produce if we wanted the 250k grant on offer. If I refused the grant was to go to a university prof who'd already expressed interest in providing the 'right' sort of report. That's back when we had first refusal, but even that changed. I ended-up as a glorified money chaser, got terribly depressed and resigned.
I was talking with a family member recently, and the '97% of scientists agree' was mentioned. I remembered one of these articles mentioned gave some explanation about that figure, but I can't find it. Do you, Mr Dee, or anyone else on here know where it is ? Mind you, I think all this is just the phase of human history that we happen to be currently going through. That thought is one that has kept me calmer over the past three years.
The first thing to understand here is how science works. It doesn't progress by opinion or by consensus but by hypothesis testing. Thus 97% of scientists may agree or even 100% but this means nothing because new data may come along to change everyone's mind. That being said the 97% figure is used dishonestly and the following YT docu explains this rather well.
I heard the 'global boiling' nonsense yesterday together with 'hottest temperatures EVER! and my first thought was John Dee :)
LOL - I'll sort the buggers out! I speak from personal experience when I say these talking heads are usually as thick as shit. In fact, they are selected for their dense quality and big mouth - the brainy bit goes on behind closed doors and involves nameless suits.
Hoist em from the propellors of their private jets!
Thank goodness we have no tv, missed that. Oh My!!! Hopefully they get so hysterical that soon nobody will be able to miss that they're criminally insane.
Exactly what Mrs Dee said after I showed her the headline.
I was just about to comment on your previous article about yesterday’s feverish reporting on the BBC
“July is "virtually certain" to be the world's warmest month on record, say scientists
The month has been so hot worldwide, that researchers are confident the 2019 record will be broken
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres says the era of "global boiling" has arrived
Meanwhile, US President Joe Biden describes climate change as an "existential threat" - and says the Miami ocean is like a hot tub
Heatwaves in Europe and the US have sparked fresh warnings about climate change”
Clearly all this stuff is globally co-ordinated but with what aim? Even if you believe in all this human CO2 causes global catastrophe nonsense, the path to net zero is supposed to take 30 years or 40 years if you’re China and India. What is the point of stirring up the masses to such an extent? The masses in the UK are missing out on all this boiling and are watching cricketers dodging showers.
It makes me think that the globalist powers that be are planning something crazy like Gates’s sun dimming and geo-engineering.
The main aim is to prop up the fiat petrodollar and the globalist empire that feeds from this by any and all means, including placing humanity into deep slavery. Invisible enemies are needed lest folk rumble the game, for without mindless compliance all plans would come to naught. Climate, like COVID, is thus a preliminary exercise in mass compliance and re-education. In essence, the natural world is to become our enemy from which we need saving (though monetisation and regulation). Back when I rubbed shoulders with 'suits' the plan was to promote the green agenda in full knowledge that it would fail to meet energy needs, ideally failing catastrophically to create total dependency on the State.
Wow. Is there something funny in those cakes you’re baking?
By the way, I checked my year 7 daughter’s geography school book for climate lessons. It seems they looked at the pros and cons of renewables and fossil fuels. So it looked quite balanced to me.
LOL - maybe some dodgy cinnamon! Good to learn of balance in books - deffo worth a choccy sponge thingy.
Sounds crazy I know but back in the '90s I was one of the G7 scientists supporting the policy teams that were drawing up broad-brush plans to take the UK through to 2050. These were supposed to be think pieces so it's rather alarming to see some of them coming to fruition, 15-minute cities being one example. Another think piece was the banning of all petrol/diesel vehicles, starting with private use. Coupled to this was change in land use legislation that restricted where people were permitted to live and work. The target UK population we were given was 23M. Documents were being funnelled up to EU strategic teams, and then to DETR policy divisions when that was formed in 1997. I didn't like what I was seeing and hearing so walked away in 2000.
"These were supposed to be think pieces so it's rather alarming to see some them coming to fruition"
Yup, I'm even careful about things I say as a (sick) joke. Before you know it, I see them happening for real.
I guess they chose that figure because that’s what it was in 1840 at the end of the Industrial Revolution. It’s gone up by 10 million since 1997. Do you know if those papers are accessible to the public?
Official files containing correspondence, memos, minutes, reports etc that were held by myself were destroyed at resignation, with my hard drive being wiped by IT, so nothing now remains.
So 15 minute cities are a 1990s idea that pre-dated Elon Musk. The thing is there is no need for them if all personal transportation is zero emission and road pricing replaces vehicle duties. Living close to your work makes sense if possible (who loves commuting?) but technology has already solved that for the laptop classes. In the UK, planning regulations are based on zoning of industry, offices, residential which prevents wholesale changes but there are some relaxations going on with offices converting to residential etc. Farming gets more efficient so return some fields to woodland and manage it.
I have always believed the there will be technological solutions but they won’t be discovered by politicians, lobbyists, journalists or committees. They will come out of universities, startups, industrial R&D and Mr Smith tinkering in his garden shed.
or Mrs Smith in her shed.
Yes, not a new idea but we didn't call them 15-minute cities back then, they were just zoned areas with much better planning, themed use and integrated infrastructure. These were not for local councils to decide willy-nilly, and we didn't bank on the rise of virtue signalling. None of these radical ideas were driven by the emerging AGW movement, being economic and genuinely ecological at heart. In the late '90s things were already going sour as evidence-based policies gave way to political shenanigans. Instead of leading a team of scientists and technology officers undertaking research I was told what results we were to obtain or suffer loss of funding. At one point I had one policy 'suit' sit and draw a graph and tell me this is precisely what my team had to produce if we wanted the 250k grant on offer. If I refused the grant was to go to a university prof who'd already expressed interest in providing the 'right' sort of report. That's back when we had first refusal, but even that changed. I ended-up as a glorified money chaser, got terribly depressed and resigned.
And making those few trillions of dollars, or whatever, on the way
That is pretty much what I have concluded as well. We just need a whole lot more to wake up and smell the coffee.
Great comment. I translated it into French used it as a quote to introduce this article: http://skidmark.blog/2023/07/28/le-mythe-dune-planete-surchauffee-par-alex-epstein/
the only record being broken is peak climate hysteria
I prefer mine (climate crisis) raw and wriggling.
Perhaps Guterres enjoys boiling his half-baked dishes.
I'm not sure he oils his tins beforehand.
I was talking with a family member recently, and the '97% of scientists agree' was mentioned. I remembered one of these articles mentioned gave some explanation about that figure, but I can't find it. Do you, Mr Dee, or anyone else on here know where it is ? Mind you, I think all this is just the phase of human history that we happen to be currently going through. That thought is one that has kept me calmer over the past three years.
The first thing to understand here is how science works. It doesn't progress by opinion or by consensus but by hypothesis testing. Thus 97% of scientists may agree or even 100% but this means nothing because new data may come along to change everyone's mind. That being said the 97% figure is used dishonestly and the following YT docu explains this rather well.
https://youtu.be/ewJ6TI8ccAw
Thank you