Not just “Black lives matter”? “Climate change” scare a scam, too, long-time alarmist says while offering his apologies

Just like all “Blogic” posts, the fol­low­ing does only form a loose and sort of acces­so­ry part of the endeav­or – yet to be launched offi­cial­ly – that is loico, just a minute relay sta­tion with­in in the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty and not an orig­i­nal con­tri­bu­tion. But when fun­da­men­tal issues con­cern­ing human­i­ty as a whole and its men­tal health are at stake, we, count­ing among our team a mem­ber with a pro­fes­sion­al his­to­ry of suc­cess­ful­ly treat­ing patients with psy­chi­atric prob­lems in dif­fer­ent European hos­pi­tals, can­not remain silent.

After it has come to light1 that “Black Lives Matter” is a marx­ist – and bla­tant­ly racist – orga­ni­za­tion that could not care less about equal oppor­tu­ni­ty but that, accord­ing to ral­ly signs exhib­it­ed by “activists”, sim­ply wants to “kill” or “eat the rich”, now the “cli­mate change” scare appears like­wise to be crum­bling to pieces.

Anyone con­vinced of speak­ing sci­en­tif­ic truth will log­i­cal­ly not attempt to silence oth­ers who see things dif­fer­ent­ly but will trust in the pow­er of his evi­dence and his con­clu­sions drawn from it. Which is why I sus­pect­ed for years that “cli­mate change” alarmists were like­ly to be the anti-sci­en­tists in the decades-long shout­ing con­test over caus­es and impli­ca­tions of actu­al­ly detect­ed glob­al warm­ing, as it had repeat­ed­ly come to light that alarmists had tried to silence non-con­form­ing voices.

Now it appears we have a “cli­mate change Edward Snowden”, a whis­tle-blow­er who destroys the entire “cli­mate change” house of cards from the inside as far as polit­i­cal gain could be drawn from it.

The log­ic of his admis­sion, giv­en the eco­nom­ic, polit­i­cal and social con­se­quences that “cli­mate change” alarmism was to have – and has already had – for human­i­ty, strong­ly points in the direc­tion of a decid­ed­ly marx­ist mind­set of the “cli­mate change” alarmist main­stream as well. It may not be an acci­dent that the “Club of Rome” traces its pub­licly vis­i­ble roots back to the year 1968, and, giv­en the decid­ed­ly anti-human nature of the marx­ist ide­ol­o­gy, that the “Club of Rome” stat­ed in its orig­i­nal man­i­festo that “the prob­lem is human­i­ty itself”.

But hey, we will, at some point, have an in-depth arti­cle on how marx­ism log­i­cal­ly destroys itself. Today, we are just a relay sta­tion. Here is the apol­o­gy I men­tioned above, by none oth­er than Michael Shellenberger. I strong­ly sug­gest you read it in case you haven’t yet.

What we find par­tic­u­lar­ly inter­est­ing is Michael Shellenberger’s recent con­gres­sion­al tes­ti­mo­ny, on which Wikipedia has this to say:

In January 2020, Shellenberger tes­ti­fied before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives. … Shellenberger … empha­sized the impor­tance of nuclear energy’s role in address­ing cli­mate change. When Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN) asked him about its poten­tial, he replied “I believe that even­tu­al­ly we will be 100% nuclear. It may not be for anoth­er two hun­dred years, but it’s such a clear­ly supe­ri­or ener­gy tech­nol­o­gy, that’s even­tu­al­ly what it will be.”2

_____
  1. https://loico.com/black-lives-matter-founder-in-interview-we-are-trained-marxists/[]
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger#Congressional_testimony[]
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on pinterest
Share on vk
Share on linkedin
Share on xing
Share on google
Share on email
Share on print
Logic is all about relating individual pieces of information in a consistent way. “Consistent” means non-contradictory. An apparent tendency of two pieces of information to appear inconsistent calls for express differentiating clarification, with the logically required depth of differentiating discussion depending on the extent to which both pieces of information appear similar.
We had expressed ourselves confident to be able to predict the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election with a high degree of confidence based on financial market behavior. What we figured out – with the highest degree of confidence – was that we were maximally uncertain about the outcome (keeping us in silent consternation). Which in hindsight would appear exactly as the correct assessment to have been made.

Leave a comment / join the discussion

Logic is all about relating individual pieces of information in a consistent way. “Consistent” means non-contradictory. An apparent tendency of two pieces of information to appear inconsistent calls for express differentiating clarification, with the logically required depth of differentiating discussion depending on the extent to which both pieces of information appear similar.
We had expressed ourselves confident to be able to predict the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election with a high degree of confidence based on financial market behavior. What we figured out – with the highest degree of confidence – was that we were maximally uncertain about the outcome (keeping us in silent consternation). Which in hindsight would appear exactly as the correct assessment to have been made.
An Egyptian man takes a hostage at knifepoint in the Milan cathedral, threatening to slit his victim’s throat. A once reputable Italian paper tells its readers that police “convinced him to lay down his weapon and release the hostage”, when in fact, for everyone to see on video, police had to forcefully overwhelm him. The full and unredacted video, in turn, explodes on social media.