Hacker News Reader

Climate change and coronavirus isn't some masterplan created just to incovenience you. You're a person out of 7 billion other people on this planet, our collective actions have consequences.

You can't see your cells, smell or see carbon monoxide, or touch the other planets - yet you trust that you have red blood cells, CO gas kills you in your sleep, and that mars is made from rock. You've been told this as well by scientists and experts, what's the difference?

Over years, PR companies employed by the big oil companies have sown doubt in climate science, this is not an accident. They did the same with cigarettes & the link to cancer - it took decades to correct the public health message that tobacco causes cancer.

I prescribe this podcast: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1/episodes/player

Climate change and coronavirus are pretexts for the rollout of a technocratic system. They are geopolitical stories to get our buy in to all they have planned for us. This can be seen in the way all our governments are acting in tandem. We have a 'new normal', 'build back better', etc. Klaus Schwab lays out the plans in detail if you want to know what's coming up.

What happened to 3 weeks to flatten the curve? We're 8 months in, and it is clear this is going to continue perpetually, and we are going to be vaccinated twice annually for covid19/20/21 - there is no end to this. And climate change is the 'carrot' - we all want to save the earth! But what if that is a fake story to frame our situation in order for us to subscribe to the plans?

If you try to correlate climate change to personal experience, you will see just how much you are putting trust in organisations that are not there to serve you.

> But what if that is a fake story to frame our situation in order for us to subscribe to the plans

Ask yourself who stands to benefit by keeping the current status quo?

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382

Its far, far bigger than that.

And you do realise that the BBC was created to be a propaganda delivery vehicle? That you couldn't get a job there unless you had been screened by MI5? That they gave out free TVs to ensure good take up of their propaganda?

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...

You have 119 sources to choose from at the bottom of the page, but perhaps anything that doesn't align with your dogmas is a propaganda piece.

Social media and Murdoch's media conglomerates were probably the biggest and most succesful propaganda machines of modern society. You might want to check what are the information sources you do trust. I am not sure I can help any further

I've expressed my position. That this is a captured system, owned by large corporations. That education, science, government, media - all of it is captured and bent towards the will of those few who own the large corporations. If you can't see how the world is being co-ordinated now, I don't think you ever will.

If you are a top elite, and own almost everything, even banks, even the Federal Reserve (and it is privately owned btw), so you can print your own money, you have a totally different set of questions. You may well find yourself prepared to ditch an entire industry (oil) for the sake of the greater good. Its really not about the oil industry.

We are globally being transitioned away from cars, etc. We will not own cars in the future. We will have our freedom of movement severely constrained, on account of our 'citizen score' (see present day China). We will not be able to use electricity or water, once our allocated credits are used up. This sounds dystopian, right?

But you will be cheering this on, because you believe what you are told.

The gap that separates us is too wide. The only thing I can suggest is this, please watch Adam Curtis's documentary 'Hypernormalisation':

https://vimeo.com/191817381/comments

(Watch at your own risk, be aware it is a BBC propaganda piece.)

Thanks for those posting data from NASA and NOAA. I know you will think that I'm being outrageous not to trust the data from those organisations, but I don't. I see all - ALL - the organisations as acting in interests that are not mine. I do not want to get into an anarchy conversation, but I think it is self-evident that governmental structures are about control.

What is requested in posting this 'scientific' data, is that I deny the evidence of my own senses.

What I would really like anecdotal evidence, preferably supported by photos. Personally, all the beaches I went to in my youth have water at the same level. I appreciate there is erosion, as there is also the depositing of new material elsewhere.

What can you give personal testimony on?

PS Do you see and accept that when you take the science data on trust, your are actually taking a religious position? The position is that the science is right, even if it doesn't cohere with your own senses. That is faith!

You seem to expect that rising Carbon Dioxide means people will suffocate, and if they haven't, then "Gotcha! It's all made up", but it doesn't work like that.

You will never, ever see the water level rise in a way that is directly visible. The effect is more frequent flooding.

I personally, have noticed a change in the climate. When I was a child, the river used to freeze in the winter and there would be metres of snow. These day the city government still hires snow clearers every winter, but they never have anything to do. Meanwhile, the summers are hotter and drier than ever. A couple of years a ago I went sunbathing in October!

Probably the best way of demonstrating this is to see the former arctic permafrost with you own eyes. I know people who have done this and they came away amazed. However, if you will not accept any 3rd party data as evidence this becomes quite difficult as you would have had to go there a few years ago to see the 'before' state.

No I don't think it means people will suffocate. I'm saying that carbon dioxide should help trees grow. That we have a natural buffer against too much.

Did you know that some farms, pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to improve their crop. It seems self-evident that any extra would be mopped up by trees, bushes etc in the wild.

I hear what you are saying about snow and your experience. But you should also ask the older generation what their experience was of the winters there. There may have been times that there wasn't always snow. And unfortunately, I don't think our weather today is entirely natural - that weather modification has been around for a few years now.

> It seems self-evident that any extra would be mopped up by trees, bushes etc in the wild.

This is factually incorrect. Please stop spreading lies. [0] You are absolutely failing to realise the rate at which we are pumping CO2, NO2 and SO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

> Did you know that some farms, pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to improve their crop.

Did you know that humans are going to get cognitively impaired with the increasing CO2 concentrations? [1]

[0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/05/plant...

[1] https://www.colorado.edu/mechanical/2020/04/21/continued-co2...

So much trust in the stories you are provided.

Even though it doesn't tally up with what you see.

I see a wonderful world. You see a world that you yourself are killing.

But even accepting the stories, science etc we are given, the top 100 corporations are responsible on their own for 70% of the emissions. Why don't we make this issue completely disappear in the easiest way possible, by banning those corporations only from any polluting? Job done.

> But even accepting the stories, science etc we are given, the top 100 corporations are responsible on their own for 70% of the emissions. Why don't we make this issue completely disappear in the easiest way possible, by banning those corporations only from any polluting? Job done.

Well on that we definitely have common ground, all you need now is a few spare million to form a political lobbying group. Bare in mind that much of that pollution is to make products/utilities that are then used by consumer. So it is still consumer driven pollution. But I absolutely agree on the principle that Government and Industry should be leading the Carbon emmisions reduction.

Its so obvious, isn't it? Why hasn't anyone done it? Because that does not suit the agenda.

Because government does not change anything, its just there to pacify the masses. Name one thing that government has done for you, when you voted?

Lobbying is not the answer. You are dealing with a system that has been captured from top to bottom.

It's not a religious position.

It's a chain of trust, as an individual you can decide where that trust begins and ends for you, but it's impossible for you to be at the forefront measuring every possible variable, and being an expert in every field, conducting analysis of the data.

At some point you need to defer to people who know (or at least, you believe they know) more than you.

It's like with our computers spying on us. Yes you can inspect the code, yes you can check the signatures of the code running on your machine match the code as listed, but then what of the OS, what of the drivers, what of the micro-code, firmware, hardware, etc etc.

It's an impossible position to reason you out of, because you are living in a completely zero trust world.

Fair enough. But I don't trust. Can I know?

If I cannot know, I will not trust. To trust would weaken me, and empower those who hide information to hide even more. This is where we are.

I do live in a zero trust world. I trust government and corporations least of all. Individuals I have much more time for.

Although zero trust was disconcerting at first, I also find it liberating. I know that there is lots I do not know. I'm not pretending to myself - holding beliefs as if they were knowledge, because of misplaced trust.

Do you grow your own food ? Where does your zero trust end ?

Science is very difficult to cheat on such high visibility issues. There is a huge scientific consensus on climate change, from experts of all countries and diverse backgrounds. For it all to be a huge conspiracy seems like a pretty big leap of faith, that they are genuine is a simpler explanation.

Science is incredibly easy to cheat. Everyone is silo'd and beholden to funding.

That very few people speak up about it (why would they, when their jobs are at risk) means nothing.

A really good example of someone speaking up, from a 'trusted' organisation, is this editorial in the British Medical Journal.

aaand here's the link, sorry!

editorial in the BMJ about covid: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

Tuvalu sinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn0pbO6U7Xs

Kiribati sinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ0j6kr4ZJ0

I think you've misunderstood what is meant when people talk about rising sea levels or temperatures.

Yes, this is literally what is happenning. But the effects are not ones you would ever directly notice, i.e. people suffocate because there is no oxygen, or that the sea level rises by several meters and suddenly the beach you used to play on as a child is underwater. Small changes have a massive impact on weather patterns and ecosystems.

If things are good in the tiny corner of the planet that you live in, then great for you.

Have you not seen the videos of open sea which used to be permafrost?

Have you not seen all the news story about forest fires, more and more every year?

When I was a child there was snow every winter. Now, it's years since we had snow, but a couple of years back we had temperatures over 30 C every day for a month, when the average is 25.

Yes. I don't trust the television to present the truth. Perhaps you also know, but 'the science' also tells us there are more polar bears than ever. I don't really trust any of it. Science, media, government - all are long-captured areas that have been bent to manage us for the benefit of those that own the corporations.

On your point about climate - do you really think that the climate should be the same, year after year? I think there are fluctuations. (I also think the weather we have is not entirely natural, but that's a different story.)

On forest fires, these are in fact managed environments. If you don't let the fires burn naturally, and allow matter to build up, eventually you will have a massive conflagration. You can just de-fund the organisations that actively managed those environments, to prepare a fire event.

Additionally, it really doesn't take much to create a fire - just someone to start one - ie this doesn't need to be a natural event. In fact, there were lots of people that were arrested for starting fires on purpose. Bizarrely, lots of them were released! (At least that was the case in Aus.)

You might say 'why would they do that?' Well, my view is that those who govern us want to usher in a technocratic control system, and they need us to accept this. If they say they are going to save us from climate change and killing the world, the psychology is such that most people would willingly sign up. They teach us about climate change in schools, so everyone is on board.

Sea levels absolutely have risen. Here’s the data from NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Sea levels have risen and will continue to rise because of climate change - https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

> I am a skeptic and I'm very far from trusting experts.

As you've said this I hardly think anything I'm going to show you will change your mind. However you have asked for some evidence so here is some.

> Sea levels

From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993)

Source: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-be....

> Bird population

In 2018, the all-species index in the UK, based on the aggregated population trends of 130 breeding species, was 11% below its 1970 value.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

>Is carbon dioxide bad?

From the IPCC 2014: Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINA...

If you really want to learn I cannot recommend the IPCC's reports enough, whether you 'trust experts' or not, they lay out the problems we face as a species. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, caused in large part by human activity.

> From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993)

This is hearsay. You were not there 3000 years ago, or even 100 years. You have been told a story and are re-telling it to me. Why should I believe it? I know how people can mislead into lying with statistics, for their work, etc to prepare information that is not accurate. I just don't have any faith in science. (I love the scientific method, but that's a different story, that pales into insignificance when funding is involved.)

> In 2018, the all-species index in the UK, based on the aggregated population trends of 130 breeding species, was 11% below its 1970 value.

We have had industrial farming methods take off at that time, and we do throw some awful stuff on the soil - I'm prepared to believe that this is probably fair data. However, how can I know this is really true?