Watch out that you are not deceived
Climate, covid and consensus
Dear Church Leaders
Further to these recent posts on climate and covid…
Compare and contrast
I invite you to compare and contrast the “climate crisis” and the “covid crisis”. Can you spot the six differences below?
Links in relation to the above can be found by clicking on the images, or here.
Before (or perhaps after) considering what follows, it might be useful to pause to consider other areas in which the strategy of problem-reaction-solution has been, is being and could be deployed.
Taking a step back
Consider also this interview with Nick Hudson of PANDA, particularly from 4:10 to 6:22 (text below):
Q. Do you think there is a parallel between covid and climate?
Yes, let’s take a step back.
The general rule of thumb, that I believe everybody should adopt, is that if any problem is being presented as a global crisis, then it is a scam. And the pattern that we are confronted with is really the fabrication of global crises. The presentation either of non-existent problems or small local problems as being general global crises. That fabrication, followed by the assertion that the only solutions that are permissible are global ones that require a global authority, global control. That is the general pattern that we are up against.
The covid policy response was one of those. Look at what happened to countries like Sweden or Tanzania who tried to push back against… the new orthodoxy.
The climate crisis, or climate change crisis, is another example, where we are told that the biggest threat to the world is this molecule CO2, and that an increase in the level of this molecule will cause an increase in temperature, and that that temperature increase will be bad for us, and that the only thing that we can do is consume fewer fossil fuels and less energy. That is fitting the pattern exactly.
The other things you can observe… Instead of presenting science as an ongoing evolving activity, it is presented in terms of static knowledge, consensus. And you see the cancellation and censorship of dissident voices rather than engagement with them. These patterns are proof of a scam. That is what people need to understand. Whenever something is presented as “the science”, as a consensus, it is a scam. You do not have to go and get engaged with in all of the minutiae of the scientific principles and the models and the measurements at all. You can know with absolute certainty that you are dealing with a scam when dissent is suppressed.
And this 2003 lecture from US author, screenwriter and filmmaker Michael Crichton, quoted in this article on the use and abuse of “consensus science”:
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
...consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
Dear Church Leaders articles (some of which can also be found on Unexpected Turns)
The Big Reveal — Christianity carefully considered