The Science. We are supposed to follow “it.” What exactly is “it?”
Let’s start with what “it” isn’t. It isn’t climate change fanaticism, and it isn’t the basis of government epidemiological policy. Those are pseudo-Science. Actual Science is based on the “data.” The climate alarmists and the CDC are both ignoring the “data.”
Unfortunately, pseudo-Science can kill people. But then again, so can Science. Nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare are examples of dangerous Science. One question might be “which is worse?” Following the Science or pseudo-Science? But the most important question is “why is there pseudo-Science?”
Pseudo-Science is being used to gain power and financial reward. Pseudo-Science must use propaganda to convince the unsuspecting Public. The propaganda receives a false certification by those who have received an elevated status among a peer group of co-conspirators. This group attracts nearly all of the available capital through its effective use of propaganda. The actual seekers of Truth cannot use propaganda to promote their cause. They must wait on the lies of pseudo-Science to be revealed through the passage of Time. The revelation of Truth can be delayed by the co-conspirators who attempt to write the History of all things, slanted towards their own propaganda. But eventually they will lose the battle. Unfortunately, that may take decades or even centuries to occur. In the meantime, the Public is ill-served.
Actual Science is based on the time-proven concept called the Scientific Method. Even “scientists” who have joined the mob of the pseudo-scientists know what the Scientific Method is, and they are afraid to re-embrace it since their livelihoods are now tied to reinforcing false pseudo-science propaganda. If they don’t tow the line, they don’t get research funding. It is a matter of survival for them. You can read about this in considerable detail in Andy May’s book, POLITICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE: A History.
The Scientific Method involves making observations, proposing an hypothesis, performing an experiment to test the hypothesis, analyzing the data to see if it supports the hypothesis and, based on the data, proposing a revised or completely new hypothesis. None of these steps matter to pseudo-Science practitioners. In fact, the data contrary to their hypothesis is ignored and, in some cases, “fiddled with” to match the hypothesis. One of the predominate “fiddling tools” is in the design of computer models.
Two of the most recent instances of “alarmism” have been driven by computer models. The most dangerous has probably been the models developed to support the erroneous claim that the use of fossil fuels is causing catastrophic climate change. This evolved into the now debunked “hockey stock” graph and its chief propagandist, Al Gore. He received a Nobel prize for promoting pseudo-Science. Pseudo-Science was employed by the United Nations to further the false claims of impending doom from the projected increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by burning fossil fuels. This is nonsense. The facts are well presented at the CO2 Coalition website.
But Globalists saw an opportunity to unite the world against a non-existent enemy while the unreliable and inefficient “renewables” industry grabbed all the world’s capital. Electrification of all things was the new goal of the enlightened, regardless of actual sources of available affordable energy— the fossil fuel, hydro and nuclear power plants. But these three sources of reliable energy are the keys to the future of all humanity and in particular, the quality of life in America. A good source of energy facts has been provided as “energy talking points” at Alex Epstein’s Center for Industrial Progress.
The other false computer model was the UK prediction of COVID-19 deaths. The epidemiology modeling team at Imperial College-London (ICL), led by the physicist Neil Ferguson played a primary role in selling the concept of lockdowns to the whole world while the UN World Health Organization hid the truth of the source of the virus—China. The governments of the United States and United Kingdom explicitly credited Ferguson’s forecasts on March 16, 2020, with the decision to embrace the once-unthinkable response of ordering their populations to shelter in place.
While the prototype for the rapid development of vaccines illustrated by President Trump’s Warp Speed project may lead to other medical breakthroughs, the zero-sum effect on the development and use of convalescent care options has been detrimental. In addition, the shut-down of elective procedures and examinations has caused both physical and economic harm. There has been no more obvious use of propaganda in support of pseudo-Science than mask mandates. A typical cloth mask is a hazard, not a help. Washing hands and maintaining some distance from others are somewhat effective measures. But a cloth mask does not screen out a virus and may even increase viral load, in particular, when used by a child. Only an N-95 rated mask and eye projection are effective against an airborne virus. Finally, the data shows that mandated lockdowns have had no effect on the spread of the virus. But they have had an exceedingly damaging effect on the economy and our way of life.
Even the smallest application of Common Sense would have prevented the past deaths of many millions of people and could still prevent future deaths. But there is no Common Sense to be found in the current leadership, and that needs to change.