Gulf stream collapse – What's the plan? | Hacker News Reader

Gulf stream collapse – What's the plan?

theguardian.com

2 pointsantony_pond7 comments

So when I was finishing high school in 1995, I was already reading alarming reports about that matter, with scientists forecasting a 1degree C increase in the next 100 year. That I could prove by looking french articles in internet archive, but I feel lazy...

So 30 years later, it's been 1.5 deg Celsius. And it's getting much closer to collapse - like... real close. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-...

They have been obviously a bitt too optimistic in their estimate.

Now let's play a game of conspiration theory...

Maybe 30 years ago, some lobby decided they'd make some more money by scewing the report ... ( because they can - and also - because those who could lobby - couldn't care less about their children's future... 30 years was at that time enough time to enjoy life on their own agenda ).

Reducing population is their goal - so when shit hits the fan - and the gulf stream dies - which would trigger an immediate ice age - there would be enough food for all survivors - so it doesn't become Zombie Land - where we all run around with an axe - for food ... and to keep warm.

After MRNA engineered to slowly decrease population over a decade - just in case it is 2035 instead of 2025.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ej5Se4gMRA

Or just making plan for a Nuclear (who got the longest p3ni5) competition to raise the global temperature by a few degree...

What's the maddest conspiration theory you guys can think off?

Let's not go conspiracy and discuss scientifically.

I am talking about scientific conspiracies....

MRNA - for example - could be an effective plan to reduce the population quite effectively, by making sure that every year, there is 10% of 20-30 years old excess death... (real numbers so far across 2022 and 2023)

They aren't saying "don't talk about scientific conspiracies" and are instead saying "don't talk about conspiracies as though something being scientifically plausible means it is automatically worth discussing as a possibility."

Also, apply Hanlon's Razor(1) to this. Is it more likely that people made a stupid choice and gambled that everything would be fine? Or is it more likely that they completely understood what they were choosing and decided to implement a grand conspiracy which continued after they were no longer in power?

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Interesting though!

I would gladly attribute it to stupidity if I logically could.

However - it takes quite some skills to get at the top of the food chain - I wouldn't classify physical attributes - like being a dumb athlete, good at running marathons while wearing corporate outfits - as a requirement - to fill- up those leadership roles.

Actuality quite the opposite - I would guess that someone - to get to that positions - has to demonstrate a tremendous tenacity and cunning capabilities - so they can convince they are better, stronger and more capable to take decisions - while not holding a basic degree (or even experience) in the area they are designated to lead.

Mostly exception - where you would see a minister of transport - having any experience on how to change a Tyre, a minister of health - being in good health - with at least 3 doctorates in medicine, psychology and philosophy.... Those exception are so little - that it is fair to say that it is pure con skills that get those people in position of power.

Perhaps they can individually con themselves into power, but this is the largest issue I see with a grand conspiracy as they would have to essentially con the surrounding con artists into continuing the conspiracy, and those con artists would have to con any future con artists into continuing the con as they are voted out of office, resign, or die while holding office. It seems implausible that such a con would be started, continue until now, and continue in the future as more and more of the original con artists are no longer involved to keep the con going.

I believe this is where you get that view from the most optimistic side... Although I agree with you - election is all about electing the best Con man / woman , most decision are made behind closed door - government agency often have high responsibility non elected director - which is all about talk and politics.

I have myself - worked for several short term governmental contract - observed that the person at the top of the food chain in those department - don't get elected - and are often totally incompetent technically speaking. But are great at talking and doing politics. Anyone making them some shadow - or going against the established narrative quickly gets dismissed. They choose to promote ass suckers - because it makes their internal political life easier.

Once they get the seat - it is for life, they won't get fired - unless they get caught doing something really offensive, such as sexual abuse - or money laundering. But they won't get fired for making obvious mistakes...

And of course, they often have to promote the most incompetent individual - when promotion is due...

Maybe I didn't got lucky, and got to always land on that ** contract - but of what I have talked around - and observed in human nature + logic deduction, I believe this is pretty much everywhere the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com