World News

Wait until you find-out about "recognized" evidence vs "not scientifically valid" evidence..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_blob

To me that's Greenland icemelt water, which, being freshwater, & therefore less-dense than salt-water, forms a skimcoat on the North Atlantic.

To the Consensus Science Establishment, it's hogwash to claim so, because they haven't authorized that to be scientifically valid.

What ELSE could have produced it, except icemelt??

Morons..

Here's some climate-scientists admitting that NONE of their climate-models have included Greenland icemelt until 2024,

& that when you include that, then the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current .. visibly has been shutting-down since 1950 or so.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-024-01568-1

This-decade, they expect that there will be more than a MILLION FEWER CUBIC-KILOMETRES of water flowing through AMOC, than in the 1940-1950 decade.

Thanks to "only the Authorized speak Valid Science" paradigm, then worthless people like us, who insist that not-only is The Cold Blob climate-significant, it's ecologically significant, as it's got to be poisoning all zooplankton who get caught in it ( due to its low-salt ), thus trashing part of the ecology of a HUGE area of our planet..

our stating-the-fucking-obvious is nonvalid.

My religion's Empiricism: it doesn't matter "who" you are: IF it's true, THEN it's true.

You can be a homeless person with no highschool, you can be a many-times-degreed person with a Nobel Prize, & IF it tests-to-be-true, THEN it tests-to-be-true.

Consensus "Science" is Scientism: it works by holding that itself is valid, & all outside itself isn't.

This "Consensus Science" ignored huge, important evidence, until it was too-late.

7 decades too late, in AMOC's case.

at 2C warmer it'll be 33% shut-down.

England's going to be having Canadian climate, this-century.

Kiss their food-growing-capacity for their traditional crops, goodbye.

The real problem is that the proper paradigm is Empiricism, but then you have to decide on each piece of evidence/information,

& to do that, you have to have people who decide..

Establishment defaults to deciding that itself is valid, & outsiders are nonvalid.

Empiricism has to do differently, but that takes more energy, more work, more integrity, etc, & therefore is more-fragile..

Which is why establishment-self-importance has such an easy time displacing integrity from our world..

It could be done, but would require a systems-of-systems approach to identifying validity in scientific evidence..

Now try mapping that from science to populations:

What are the criteria for "a valid people"?

What are the criteria for "right to self-govern"?

Do you see how no matter who decides, others are offended by that specific decision?

How the upright will decide things 1 way, but the machiavellian-psychopaths will decide in fundamentally-different ways, consistently?

Do you see how IF you decide to do The Right Thing, now there are very-heavily-armed-thugs who will murder one's family & self, in order to prevent one from "infringing on the mafia's turf", to remap the international-politics onto organized-crime?

It isn't politically-possible to Do The Right Thing, & survive having done that, right?

Therefore, one tries to find what compromise .. one can live-with, for now ..

& .. then one finds one is trapped in multiple abusive-relationships, & can't get out, without making things even worse ..

& this is approximately the current-situation of every country ( with uprightness ) in the world.

IT ISN'T POSSIBLE TO WIN.

It only is possible to lose-less, if one is careful, in this world-game..

_ /\ _