Experts creating the coronadoom may or may not have designed it as a weapon. They did, however, design it to kill. Maybe it got out accidentally—stupidity is always a likely explanation—or maybe it was leaked.
Either way, it worked. The gain-of-lethality experiments that led to the coronadoom can only be celebrated as a success. Nature herself never thought up anything quite like it. We can be sure the coronadoom’s designers will win at least the Noble Prize in Medicine.
But probably the Noble Peace Prize, too.
It’s a long shot, but they’re in the race. Being considered gives these scientists at least the political muscle to demand better offices, or at least better parking spaces at university. No small thing!
We know this because of this headline: U.N. says world likely to miss climate targets despite COVID pause in emissions.
Did you see the word? Despite.
“The pace of climate change has not been slowed by the global COVID-19 pandemic and the world remains behind in its battle to cut carbon emissions, the United Nations said on Thursday.”
Should the Expert-created Covid pandemic and Expert-created panic have caused “carbon” emissions to fall?
No, I’m asking: should it have? Was it desired to have? Planned to have?
What do they say? “‘Throughout the pandemic we have heard that we must build back better to set humanity on a more sustainable path and to avoid the worst impacts of climate change on society and economies,’ said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.”
This doesn’t answer the crucial question on desire, but it does highlight Experts’ “Build Back Better.”
What is one way they’re doing this? Personal carbon allowances.
Incidentally, before we continue, let me insert a reminder that Experts are largely midwits. You cannot personally reduce your personal carbon unless you lose fat, which is composed chemically, in part, of carbon. Carbon makes up trees, grass, vegetables, and even Experts.
What these Experts mean to limit is carbon dioxide, which is not carbon. Any way that you can take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is, presumably, good, as long as you believe in global warming of doom. So what they should really say is that people should increase their carbon, not limit it.
Experts, being midwits, cannot tell the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.
But let this pass, just as we have to let “cases” when they mean infections in the coronadoom panic pass.
Anyway, the peer-reviewed paper is “Personal carbon allowances revisited” in Nature Sustainability by Nirini and some others. How will they limit your “carbon”?
We argue that recent advances in AI for sustainable development, together with the need for a low-carbon recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, open a new window of opportunity for PCAs. Furthermore, we present design principles based on the Sustainable Development Goals for the future adoption of PCAs. We conclude that PCAs could be trialled in selected climate-conscious technologically advanced countries, mindful of potential issues around integration into the current policy mix, privacy concerns and distributional impacts.
Now this level of idiot worship of AI—they might just as easily have said “computers”—couldn’t possibly exist in anything but an environmentalist, sociologist or some other midwit occupation, I thought. So I checked.
One author has a PhD in “Energy and Environmental Systems Analysis”. Another is a “member of UK Energy Research Centre’s demand reduction research team, doing research on personal carbon trading, the role of heat pumps in the UK, and energy use in the higher education sector.” A third is indeed a sociologist. And the fourth is an economist.
So not one of the four has any competency to understand any of the physics. They are nothing more than credentialed True Believers. Or For-Granted Grant Getters. They believe, and understand, at least strong enough to get in on the publishing and grant train.
They occupy leaching academic positions. They exist merely to push paper from one point to the next, adding no value except to their own bank accounts and to provide the Expertocracy a reason for its existence.
The basic idea of PCAs is—and see if this shocks you—very like vaccine passports. Some government agency, headed by academics like these, would decide if you are “fully carbonized”, or whatever.
They admit carbon passports are “radical” but they wave that aside given how strongly PCAs would boost their self-importance.
What about privacy? They have that figured out. “Some lessons from the loss of privacy associated with the use of tracking apps during the COVID-19 pandemic46 could provide initial insights into ethical and secure app design”.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here