Met office "faking" climate data

[Broch]

I step into this 'discussion' with trepidation However:

On climate change - I'm a systems engineer, I see damped and undamped oscillations in everything I look at - some with phases of seconds, others with thousand or even millions of years. In a chaotic world we have difficulty identifying and quantifying all the stimuli of quite basic control environments let alone something as complex as the earth's climate. My point being, I suspect we don't know the half of it.

But, global warming isn't really the problem. Yes, man was around last time it got hot and what did we do? we moved, we were nomadic, there were few boundaries or barriers. Now, we have country borders, protection of resources (food and water), and the ability to protect our borders from the mass innocent. There will be wars over water supplies and food resources - not oil or minerals as in the past. What we should be concentrating our time and money on is planning and implementing ways of mitigating these things.

On COVID Vaccines - I'm just curious, has there ever been any data published of percentage of people who died or were hospitalised that had received vaccination compared to those that did not receive vaccination (the data would have to be post-vaccine introduction of course)? But then, would you believe it if it was?

 

[Pattree]

The OP refers to Climate Change.

Climate Change, Vaccine, The shape of the Earth, Space travel and Aliens: These are far more often artefacts of our identity than assessments of the information available.

I believe that it is pointless to debate these issues in this kind of forum. I doubt that any opinions will change, I doubt that anyone will be informed. We will each accept the text that reinforces our view and reject that which does not.
Much of BcUK offers a learning experience. This does not.

These issues tend to evangelism which I totally reject in all its forms whether establishment founded or alternative in origin.

I have no intention of countering or attacking anyone’s personal identifiers. It would be cruel and a waste of effort.

I shall keep my own council.

.
.
.

 

[Hammock_man]

Without the Vaccine, covid could have been like the 1918 flu. Untold numbers WOULD have died.

 

[RonW]

Without the Vaccine, covid could have been like the 1918 flu. Untold numbers WOULD have died.

The 1918 flu epidemic saw the population carrying masks and being vaccinated en masse.... Might there be a correlation?
How come the unvaxxed are still alive and kickin', whereas myocarditis, turbocancer and lots of other ill sideeffects appear to be a prerogative of the vaxxed?
Never noticed how the vax-narrative changed over time from flatten the cure to you might not get a sick as otherwise?
You people have been duped, used as guinnea-pigs in an experiment that ends in 2025. And all the consequences thereof are on those that complied.
And many have shown their true colours by not just complying, but actively demanding totalitarian measures against those that were critical.

 

[William_Montgomery]

Without the Vaccine, covid could have been like the 1918 flu. Untold numbers WOULD have died.

I wasn't discussing vaccine efficacy, though there is certainly a conversation to be had on that front.
I took issue with your original comment. It's fine if you don't want to go into or defend it, I just want it to be clear that I completely disagree with what you stated.

 

[William_Montgomery]

On COVID Vaccines - I'm just curious, has there ever been any data published of percentage of people who died or were hospitalised that had received vaccination compared to those that did not receive vaccination (the data would have to be post-vaccine introduction of course)?

Not sure that there is clear data on this. I know of a few people who had suspected side effects post covid vaccination, though I don't believe they were reported as such. Unfortunately I think there was a lot of pressure to not record suspected cases and so I would expect a large amount went under the radar.

But then, would you believe it if it was?

I like to think most people are open to changing their minds based on the evidence. The problem is, most people have such little faith left in the government, media and pharmaceutical companies after how we've seen them behave over the past few years, that it's become very difficult to put any trust in information coming from those sources.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

COVID Vaccines - I'm just curious, has there ever been any data published of percentage of people who died or were hospitalised that had received vaccination compared to those that did not receive vaccination (the data would have to be post-vaccine introduction of course)? But then, would you believe it if it was?

COVID vaccines are in 'phase 4' trials which is effectively the real-world monitoring that takes place for medicines and vaccines post market. ONS published reports on this for the UK, and I think the world health organisation collated and published ongoing trial data to help with strategic decisions, I think they may still be doing this. I'm sure it's available to the public too. I can try find some links. I can't remember the exact percentages but hospitalisations and deaths are significantly lower in vaccinated people.

As for trust in these things, all I can say is that having worked in the industry, yes I personally trust the data. And I say that having no love for the industry either. Just experience.

 

[August Landmesser]

The only real global trend for which there is abundant, undeniable data that even the layperson can interpret without needing an expert to explain, supports the hypothesis that governments tell lies and waste money and we get to like it or lump it.

 

[August Landmesser]

We will each accept the text that reinforces our view and reject that which does not.

I don't believe this is the case. Every flat earther that I've ever spoken to grew up believing the earth is a globe but changed their long held belief because they did not reject the text which does not reinforce their view. They may be wrong, they may be crazy but they're not bogged down in the dogma of trusting authority (which may also be wrong or crazy) more than their own judgement.

 

[Chris]

I don't believe this is the case. Every flat earther that I've ever spoken to grew up believing the earth is a globe but changed their long held belief because they did not reject the text which does not reinforce their view. They may be wrong, they may be crazy but they're not bogged down in the dogma of trusting authority (which may also be wrong or crazy) more than their own judgement.

You say 'not being bogged down by trusting authority more than their own judgement', others might say 'not wise enough to know what they don't know'. Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[C_Claycomb]

The tightrope between thinking about and discussing and questioning subjects above one’s intellectual pay grade and being lead meekly by society’s authority figures.

Is it possible to attain real knowledge without first navigating the path described by Messrs Dunning and Kruger?

 

[Suffolkrafter]

The tightrope between thinking about and discussing and questioning subjects above one’s intellectual pay grade and being lead meekly by society’s authority figures.

This to me is a real and serious issue. We cannot be experts in everything. The reality is that in life, we sometimes have to place trust in others. Like you say, where do you draw the line? For me, authority is corrupted by two things; ideology and the prospect of gaining money. Both of these factors risk getting in the way of making decisions based on fact and logic.
People bang on about pharmaceuticals. Yes, pharma corporations aim to make money for share holders and private investors. Not ideal - risk of corruption. But this is countered by hugely effective regulators who have real teeth. You falsify data, you can go to prison. A company breaches regulations, it gets shut down. You accept something more than the value of a mug or a pen from another company? You're on disciplinary for bribery. Somehow, on the whole, it works. Not saying it's perfect, but it generally works.
Now take a look at water companies. Not only you have private investors or shareholders, but individuals within the company profit from bad practice. Add to that an ineffective regulatory and you end up with lakes full of sewage.
Look at our political parties. A politician lies, what happens? Nothing. They can accept money from god only knows who. And then they're bound by whatever ideology they adhere to. No wonder we all have trust issues.

 

[August Landmesser]

not wise enough to know what they don't know

Many such cases

 

[RonW]

You say 'not being bogged down by trusting authority more than their own judgement', others might say 'not wise enough to know what they don't know'. Dunning-Kruger effect.

Or by the outright rejection of facts, evidence or proof, because those not only question but show that one's own convictions are faulty. Cognitive dissonance.

The tightrope between thinking about and discussing and questioning subjects above one’s intellectual pay grade and being lead meekly by society’s authority figures.

Is it possible to attain real knowledge without first navigating the path described by Messrs Dunning and Kruger?

I think that there might be 2 paths here, 2 different kind of people, which are fundamentally different; the one's that do not know, think they know, but are willing to look at and accept evidence and alter their view/thinking and the one's that do not know, think they know everything better, reject any and all evidence to the contrary and thus are unwilling/unable to alter their view/thinking.

This to me is a real and serious issue. We cannot be experts in everything. The reality is that in life, we sometimes have to place trust in others. Like you say, where do you draw the line? For me, authority is corrupted by two things; ideology and the prospect of gaining money. Both of these factors risk getting in the way of making decisions based on fact and logic.
People bang on about pharmaceuticals. Yes, pharma corporations aim to make money for share holders and private investors. Not ideal - risk of corruption. But this is countered by hugely effective regulators who have real teeth. You falsify data, you can go to prison. A company breaches regulations, it gets shut down. You accept something more than the value of a mug or a pen from another company? You're on disciplinary for bribery. Somehow, on the whole, it works. Not saying it's perfect, but it generally works.
Now take a look at water companies. Not only you have private investors or shareholders, but individuals within the company profit from bad practice. Add to that an ineffective regulatory and you end up with lakes full of sewage.
Look at our political parties. A politician lies, what happens? Nothing. They can accept money from god only knows who. And then they're bound by whatever ideology they adhere to. No wonder we all have trust issues.

Personally I believe that the real motivator for authority is the hunger for power. No stronger drug that the ability to wield that. Greed is a natural second, since both are tightly intertwined.
Those that desire to wield it will seek out positions in which this is possible.
And in contemporary society there are next to no consequences for those that "fail" in the upper echelons.
We have seen that during the plandemic, we see it within the new "green" movement and we see it within the movements pro or contra current conflicts. It never is about the issue that is claimed, but always about dictating the masses and crushing the opposition.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

Why does no one ever mention the oil industry in all this?

 

[Suffolkrafter]

Personally I believe that the real motivator for authority is the hunger for power

I'm sure this is often the case too. I agree.

 

[Falstaff]

I'm sure this is often the case too. I agree.

I think the one other motivator, most powerful one, is ego. Which can exist in it's own right, without necessarily seeking money or power, but is always also wrapped into the latter two.

 

[August Landmesser]

'not being bogged down by trusting authority'

Have you ever heard of the Dorset Dice Trials? The Guardian article linked examines declassified MOD files that describe a series of biological warfare experiments performed on an unwitting British public between the 1950's and 70's in the south west of England, Military personnel were briefed to tell "any inquisitive enquirer" that the trial were part of research into weather and air pollution https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

 

[Falstaff]

Have you ever heard of the Dorset Dice Trials? The Guardian article linked examines declassified MOD files that describe a series of biological warfare experiments performed on an unwitting British public between the 1950's and 70's in the south west of England, Military personnel were briefed to tell "any inquisitive enquirer" that the trial were part of research into weather and air pollution https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

Yes, my college lecturer was a retired senior Govt/MoD Bod involved in the contracts for the Porton Down gas/other weapon testing spray chambers. Plus other stuff he was not allowed to disclose.

 

[Falstaff]

Interesting article, the birth defects is a red herring, local genetics come into play. Porton Down now sends their new developed stuff over to the USA for manufacture/stockpiling and wider remit testing. Ditto GMO (foods) that used to be developed near me.