For a while, especially given the snow in early May, and frost late in the month, like last night, I thought summer would never come. Which is why my heart soared like a hawk when I saw Experts weeping that “climate change” will soon be upon us and create unprecedented warming.
Let it come!
I need a chance to finally launder my flannel underwear.
Anyway, welcome to summer, dear readers! The fish are flying, the beer is on chill, the cigars are lit, the birds and beasts rejoice. I look upon all creatures with a warm glow, even them damned hooting rat-birds, whose coo-coo-coo penetrates through all layers of ear protection.
I’m off to points west next week for another Broken Science event. This soiree is long filled past capacity, else I would have announced it more generally.
Publicity is picking up. I was very pleased when ZeroHedge this week highlighted the Hillsdale speeches we did.
The Rot Behind “The Science”
From Washington to Davos, experts tell us we need to “listen to the science”, as they push their preferred policies on us, from eating bugs to ditching fossil fuels. My friend William Briggs gave a great speech last month at Hillsdale College about the flawed way science is often practiced today, and how it has been politicized. As Dr. Briggs, a former professor at Cornell Medical School puts it,
When someone says, “Listen to the science”, what they mean is, “Listen to me”
Dr. Briggs is an excellent speaker, so I recommend watching the video, but he’s posted a transcript as well if you’d like to read it.
Not only is this terrific publicity for the Broken Science effort, it’s pre-advertising for the science book I am my pal Jaap Hanekamp are writing. Selling books and services is how I make my living. For there is no getting rich making speeches. For instance, it cost me about a hundred bucks in gas to make the Hillsdale speech. Though I did score a meal, a free beer, and a room to sleep it off in.
Nevertheless, if your group would enjoy me putting them to sleep, fanned by the gentle breezes of my deranged-monkey-arm-waving stage antics, do let me know.
As I’ve promised many times, I did make some videos. I even learned some basic editing, which is not enjoyable. It was in this editing I made a terrible discovery. To my utter horror, the person in the videos looked just like me! I am unsure what to do about this. The suggestion of a false moustache was advanced, and is worth considering. Briggs as Zapata, the science revolutionary.
Yet not quite a revolutionary. Something greater. Something that happened, but which I cannot yet tell you about, has confirmed that I am Science Conan.
I know these words are true, for I have felt their force. Scientifically. Victory can be ours, and it is sweet when it happens. The fight is worth making.
You don’t even have to decide to have this fight. Our enemies have performed this service for you.
The covid panic is over, it is true, but they must needs have one at all times to meet their dark ends. They are trying “white supremacy”, which gains some purchase, but their largest efforts will be in resurrecting “climate change.” The amount of money and power to be gained in taking over everything—for, they say, everything affects and is affected by “climate change”—is too tantalizing for them to resist.
If you’ve never seen this post on the evidence for and against “climate change”, this long weekend is your chance.
There will, of necessity, be much more on this to come here. Pay attention to it. In the Netherlands, they are using the faux nitrogen “crisis” (tied to “climate change”) to confiscate land. They are moving to take cars in England. More is coming.
Now, my dear readers, the sign on the shingle is true. I am wholly independent. I receive no salary, save the tremendous support I have received from you over the years. For which I am profoundly grateful. Without you, I would not have been able to do this work. You have my deepest and sincerest thanks. Now tell your friends!
Reminder that the blog is mirrored on Substack for those who prefer that platform.
Blessed summer. See you Tuesday.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
You shall get a chance in the coming week.
On the “Dutch Nitrogen Crisis”, I’m having trouble discerning the left’s end game here. Even the left’s most optimistic goals necessarily mandate a whole lot of local pain in the Netherlands for a very minimal global gain. Normally the left understands this very well – when your solutions require reducing people’s freedom to act in their own self-interest, you have to also cut off their access to alternatives that would circumvent your rules. In the US, this is why they attempt to force their policies on a national level, even for issues where a much wiser course of action would be to first test their solutions on a state level.
From the point of view of this casual outside observer, it looks like a lose-lose proposition to me. When they destroy Dutch agriculture, do they expect other countries to say “wow, that worked out well, let’s copy what they did”? How do they win this one? Or is it all just another manifestation of Hanlon’s Razor?
I live for summer. Gardens and orchard are bursting up right now. Deer, birds, flowers, and the gentle coo coo of the doves sooth my soul. Doves come in pairs, you know. Love is in the air.
I’m pretty sure that simply saying “don’t trust science” is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot of excellent science out there, and it’s easy to find, you can even use chatGPT to find it (if you can’t do it yourself). And, surprisingly enough, there is a lot of ecology (animal and plant reproduction, distributions and other changes), and glacier studies that all support global warming.
Our challenge is to recognize when politicians use ideas like this for their own gains, or, on the other hand, when industry abuses them for their own gains. For a few examples:
How the oil industry made us doubt climate change – https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382
Big oil companies are spending millions to appear ‘green.’ Their investments tell a different story, report shows – https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/07/energy/big-oil-green-claims-report-climate-intl/index.html
Oil Executives Privately Contradicted Public Statements on Climate, Files Show – https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/climate/oil-industry-documents-disinformation.html
Isn’t our interest in keeping up with the data, doing our fact-checking duties, and finding the truth of the matter, instead of simply writing it all off as hoax?
JJR, your choice of words betray you. ‘Hoax” is a word CAGW true believers put in the mouths of CAGW skeptics to trivialize the skeptical arguments. If you follow the money, scam is the appropriate word here. People are inclined to dismiss hoaxes as harmless conspiracy theories, something your kooky uncle believes, but everyone knows somebody who has been burned in a scam.
How is Big Oil relevant to a debate on the merits of CAGW science? Big Oil will always make big money, either by slim profits on fat revenue, or fat profits on slim revenue, they care not which way society goes.
You suggest using ChatGPT to find “excellent science”. I use ChatGPT all the time, and like any tool I use a lot, I’ve become quite familiar with it’s limitations. One severe limitation is a ponderous politically-correct bias. I wouldn’t choose it to find impartial information/references on controversial topics, any more that I would use Wikipedia for that purpose. But since you asked nicely, sure, I’ll give it a try.
I chose as a topic: “Is Climate Change causing an increase in the occurrence and severity of destructive weather events”, and asked it for references. It came up with five references with a finding “yes” to this question (one of which was from the IPCC, but whatever). It reluctantly came up with two references with a finding of “not necessarily”, rife with caveats:
—
“As of my last update in 2021, the overall scientific consensus points towards a general increase in the frequency and/or severity of certain types of extreme weather events in response to global warming. However, for some types of events, the evidence may be less clear, or regional variations may obscure global trends. Here are a couple of studies or viewpoints that might be seen as casting some doubt or offering a nuanced perspective:
Klotzbach, P. J., Landsea, C. W., & Bell, M. M. (2018). Updated Atlantic hurricane frequency analysis through 2017. Colorado State University. In this paper, the authors suggest that while there has been an increase in the number of major hurricanes in the Atlantic since the late 19th century, the trend becomes less clear when taking into account the potential undercounting of storms in the earlier part of the record due to limitations in observation technology.
Pielke Jr, R. A. (2020). US Tornadoes and “Normalized” Damage: 1950-2018. Environmental Hazards, 19(1), 1-14. This study argues that there hasn’t been a significant increase in the frequency or intensity of tornadoes in the United States when adjusting for improvements in detection technology. However, this does not necessarily contradict the broader trend of increasing extreme weather events under climate change, as tornadoes are influenced by a complex array of factors and may not respond to climate change in the same way as other types of extreme weather.
It’s worth noting that these papers do not argue against the basic premise of anthropogenic climate change itself, but rather offer a nuanced perspective on how it’s affecting certain types of extreme weather events. It’s also worth noting that the lack of a clear trend in some types of extreme weather events does not mean that these events will not become more frequent or severe in the future as global warming continues. Scientists are working to improve their understanding of these complex dynamics and to refine their models to better project future changes.
—
After reading that double-speak, are you going to persist in recommending ChatGPT as an unbiased source of “excellent science”?
It appears that our godless, soulless atheist is a believer in Artificial Ignorance, and a proselytizer for global warming paranoia and panic. You have to serve somebody, and our parasitic troll serves who? Soros? who pays him no doubt to persecute Christians, Christianity, Jesus Christ, and God.
It has been thus for 2,000 years. The Great Scam is just the latest satanic plot. The real goal of the Dark Side is to inflict suffering, poverty, starvation, enslavement, and death to billions of people.
The funny thing is that Warmer Is Better. Mother Earth has been much warmer than today for 99% of the last 250 million years. The Jurassic, Triassic, Cretaceous, Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene Epochs were all warmer than today by as much as 20° F. Warmer is the normal condition.
Of course the Earth warms differentially. During prior epochs the poles were warmer while Equatorial regions were much the same. The Amazon flora, for instance, is Cretaceous in origin — some 80-100 million years old dating back to the dawn of flowering plants.
Warmer is better for agriculture. The warmest places on Earth are also the most productive. Most of our food plants are tropical: corn, wheat, rice, grapes, citrus, etc. Warmer is better for bio-productivity and biodiversity — the Amazon has the greatest diversity with thousands of species per acre while tundra has no more dozen species on thousands of square miles.
Warmth is nothing to fear; in fact it should be celebrated as a gift from God. I heart summer with humble gratitude. So should you. Count your blessings.
Milton Hathaway seemed to misunderstand just about everything he was replying to. First of all, I was pointing out that even the Oil Industry was AWARE of climate change as a result of burning oil long ago. Second, I was pointing out that people write climate change off as a hoax when they know little or nothing about it, for political, not logical, reasons (for example). Thirdly, the chatGPT suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, and I was merely saying that if it’s too much trouble to do the literature search, then chatGPT could help.
For every article you can find against climate change, you can find one for it. That means we’re in the unenviable position of having to read both sides of the debate and use logic and data to drive our decisions. But we always have to ask ourselves what the motives are of the authors of the study. In ecology, for example, nobody makes any money either way off of climate change, and publishing is a numbers game, so publish pro or con matters not, so long as the academic publishes. In industry, there are financial motives. In politics, the same. Regardless, it’s not the number of articles published that determines the reality of the issue, but the evidence.
It appears that Uncle Mike is unable to have a reasonable discussion without insulting. I see his knee-jerk reaction includes references to the hated George Soros, who has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, so I can only assume he threw it in for lagniappe.
I also notice that not a single shred of evidence was found in Uncle Mike’s tirade. And, clearly, Uncle Mike does not understand the issue, and his simple, yet insistent, claim that “warmer is better” demonstrates that. Opinion is not evidence.
Mr. Jimmy,
My “tirade” is jam packed with evidence. The paleo climatic record is based on paleo botanic fossils. Read “Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic History of North American Vegetation” by Dr. Alan Graham, who cites thousands of studies. No evidence! Bwhahaha!
The most productive (yield per acre) farmland in the US is in the Imperial Valley — south of Death Valley. Do you think your food comes from Alaska? Wrong-ola. It comes from warm places.
Hey, you’re the prideful atheist. Your tirades about “no evidence of God” are dumber than mud. Libtards always have blinders on. “No evidence” is their favorite refrain, even when the evidence is plain and abundant.
You’re out of your depth, Mr. Jimmy. Go haunt somewhere else. Nobody here agrees with you about anything.
Uncle Mike tiraded again, with: “My “tirade” is jam packed with evidence.” Nobody talking about climate change today is worried about going as far back as “paleoclimate” – after all, around 12,000 years ago was when the last glaciation ended. That is not evidence of the current issue. You seem to be unaware of the reason why Russia is fighting Ukraine – it produces food for much of Africa, and central Canada and the Great Plains of the USA produce very large quantities of food. And, it’s not only the warmth that would be important anyway, it’s the water and the soil quality. And, you seem to not consider the natural world as being anything important, if you think “growing food” is the only thing that matters about climate change.
And then, good ol’ Uncle Mike proceeded to the ad hominems, with libtards and dumber than mud. And, he continues to think that evidence is what he wants to believe. And, he chides me and tells me to go on my way, as if he thinks that majority rule is what determines the truth of things. As far as curmudgeons go, Uncle Mike, you are there with the best of them.
Remember, you should fact-check the most the thing you want most to believe in.
JJR: “For every article you can find against climate change, you can find one for it.”
Not from what I’ve observed. More like “For every article you can find against climate change, you can find dozens for it”. But yes, agreed, we always and everywhere have to “read both sides of the debate and use logic and data to drive our decisions”.
JJR: “In ecology, for example, nobody makes any money either way off of climate change”. More tongue-in-cheek, I assume? An argument can be made that cancel culture got its start in the CAGW world, and cancel culture is all about money, or more specifically, the denial of money to those who dare dabble in disfavored speech. The most prominent voices on the CAGW skeptic side are largely immune from cancellation, out of necessity, or as a consequence. (Being successfully cancelled is like getting a contagious disease; those who manage to recover tend to develop immunity.)
I suspect you may not fully appreciate how much of the “evidence” for CAGW comes from models. Even data that seems obviously measured in the real world has been run through models, such as land-based temperature measurements that have been corrected (tortured?) for various effects, such as the urban heat island effect. (If you haven’t done so already, I suggest you check out Roy Spencer’s blog.)
I’m still not seeing the relevance of Big Oil. It appears to be an attempt at a common rhetorical trick, claiming that the big bad straw man, your perceived mortal enemy in the CAGW debate with every reason in the world to lie, actually agrees with your position, which adds weight to your side. This rhetorical trick is everywhere, recognizable as some form of “see, even my enemies agree with me on this point” (a variation on the genetic fallacy, perhaps). But as I said before, it’s a leftist illusion that Big Oil has a dog in this fight. Some countries have gone all-in, deeply imbibing the prescribed CAGW remedial Kool-Aid; has Big Oil suffered any loss of profit in any of those countries?
Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT to list countries that had taken significant steps to combat climate change. It listed seven countries. I then asked if the profits of “Big Oil” companies had declined in any of those countries. It listed paragraphs of caveats, predictions of what can be expected to happen, pronouncements of the complexity of the issue and warnings against generalizations and over-simplifications. But it never said it didn’t have access to the profit data, so I kept asking, trying to narrow it’s response parameters. After much prodding, it finally responded “As of my last update in September 2021, there was not a clear, direct correlation between the climate policies of individual countries and the profitability of “Big Oil” companies operating in those countries.”
If OpenAI hopes to proliferate ChatGPT for real work, I think they are going to have to fix it’s sh*tty politically-correct bias. Simple requests for factual data that it has access to shouldn’t be like pulling teeth just because those facts could be, or more likely, have been, used to support disfavored positions.
On the the hand, if I ever feel the need to argue with a liberal on a controversial topic, ChatGPT seems like a perfect substitute. It displays all the usual characteristics of liberal argumentation: a stubborn refusal to admit the relevance of omitted facts brought to it’s attention, impressive prevarication skills, a fondness for confusing possible outcomes with likely outcomes, and an adroit application of a whole array of logical fallacies. And ChatGPT won’t cancel me, physically attack me, or try to get me fired. Not yet, anyway.
Milton Hathaway had more comments for one post than is good to deal with, considering the attention span of most people these days (which will get even shorter once chatGPT really gets going – all conversations will be between people asking chatGPT to answer what someone else challenged them with!).
At any rate, remember, Ecology, the science, seeks to explain species abundances and distributions – of course, to the lay person (non-ecologist) ecology is the same thing as conservation. So, I’ll repeat, in the science of ecology, researchers (often professors, but at small to large colleges and universities) don’t make money on WHAT they publish, but rather get tenure and grants based on HOW MUCH they publish. Of course, politics, popularity and bureacracy can get in the way, but for the most part, researchers are seriously interested in understanding what factors determine distributions and abundances of the organisms they study. It turns out, everything from migration patterns, breeding, survival, and abundance today are influenced (at least in some species) by climate change (warming, generally). You can bet, considering the honor associated with disproving some other scientist’s pet theory, scientists often disagree, and so if some of this research is poorly done, biased, or seeks to find an association with climate change that isn’t there, some other scientist will point it out. Cancel culture in no way enters into this kind of situation. It might in their university, but not in their research.
Cancel culture, like many things, started as simply a way to divide us. Nobody talks about cancel culture more than politicians, even when they don’t really know what they’re talking about. Just like CRT, and abortion, it’s one of those topics that creates polemics with a lot more heat than thought, and it keeps the voters annoyed and pissed off at all the wrong things. And that plays into the hands of the politicians, keeps them reelected, corrupt, living like kinds while they screw the rest of us. I won’t speak any more on these topics, because they shouldn’t even be political issues.
ChatGPT is limited and experimental, and it’s data are through 2021. Certainly, the idea is for the owners to get us all addicted to it, before they include the entire internet and can charge us money for its use. Capitalism at its finest. I don’t take it seriously, yet. Even if it occasionally gives decent answers, or can solve a statistics problem, you can’t trust it. Why just the other day I tried to get it to help me with Wordle, and it told me that “Stye” was a five-letter word.
The relevance of Big Oil is that they knew, and published reports, that burning fossil fuels would cause an increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases and increase temperatures in unpredictable way and cause global warming. In the 1960s! They hid those reports and pretended that there was no relationship and convinced a lot of people, especially the politicians they bought, that global warming was a hoax. They knew otherwise. That’s the point of bringing Big Oil into it. Here, check this out – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0349-9
“Nobody talking about climate change today is worried about going as far back as “paleoclimate” – after all, around 12,000 years ago was when the last glaciation ended.”
Yes, plenty of people are. You’re not listening. You and your ilk are stuck on stupid. Instead your vaunted leaders believe the seas are going to boil if it gets any warmer. Algore made that claim again, just a month ago, to the WEF.
But the Earth has been warmer than today for billions of years, and the oceans haven’t boiled away yet. You can go to seashore, wade into the water and stick your head in the ocean — to provide yourself some convincing evidence.
Paleoclimatology is important. Models that predict the future must rely on the past or they are baseless. Or debased, as the case might be.
But you revel in your ignorance as if were a badge of honor Head in the sand is not “science”. It’s just dumbness on top of dumbness. Nobody asked you to spew your stupidity here. Bugger off.
Uncle Mike remains unable to have a civil discussion and seems to prefer the comfort of an echo chamber over debate. The issue today is that climate is warming too rapidly, and so paleoclimate can provide some information, but it’s not really relevant. We all know that climate has been both warmer and cooler in the past. But, climate models in the past, say 4000 years are much more useful than those of the past 40,000 years, and easier to handle because the data that inform them are better. And, you’re waxing a little hyperbolic – nobody thinks the oceans will boil, but they are already hotter than the corals can handle in many places.
And, since when are you the arbiter of who can talk about what where? Head in the sand? Now you’re getting your concepts mixed. Head in the sand is when people ignore real issues, so what are you talking about? Telling me to “bugger off” is more indicative of your self-righteousness than anything else.
For most people, melted polar ice will reduce driving time to the nearest seashore, which will help reduce fuel consumption and further carbon dioxide emissions. Prediction models do not take this feedback into consideration. That’s why I DON’T follow the science.
Gunther said: “That’s why I don’t follow the science.” Of course, the proportion of fuel that is used to drive to the beach isn’t the critical part. And, models DO factor in changes in transportation and travel over time with rising sea levels – why do you think they don’t? Finally, there is much more to this issue than just what is being modeled. There are field studies of all sorts. Gunther’s just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Roper is pushing the warmistas line, that their computer models have discovered a new thing caused by human emissions that hasn’t been seen in the geologic record. Somehow human produced CO2 has a special magic pixie dust effect that can cause runaway greenhouse whereas plain old pre-human CO2 has no power. Suddenly methane is a problem too, even though it has a dwell time in the atmosphere of two weeks so that we’re going to have to pump up the volume a bit to make that wish come true. There’s no point arguing with Roper’s magical thinking because it’s science. We need a purge of midwits, maybe ChatGPT can figure out a strategy to get rid of them.
John Pate seems to prefer ad hominem over reasonable debate, and simply tries to make my points look silly without actually addressing them. First of all, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, as is CH4, irrespective of how long they remain in the atmosphere. Surprisingly, perhaps, CH4 is more than 3x preindustrial levels, even considering that it is broken down more quickly. And, it isn’t that it is suddenly a problem, it’s been a greenhouse gas all along. Just now, levels are up, and combined with CO2 simply adds to the greenhouse effect. If you don’t accept the studies that demonstrate these are greenhouse gases and their concentrations are increasing, and you reject all science, then what in the world do you base your understanding of the world on?
Keep typing Roper, you’re proving my point. You didn’t address what I said you vomited irrelevant information, what isn’t irrelevant is actually nonsensical but you clearly have no real idea of what you’re talking about. “If you don’t accept the studies … blah blah blah”. Peer reviewed were they? FYI I have BSc Honours degree awarded in 1982 by a Russel Group University in the UK, I was studying science before you were even born. “CH4 is more than 3x preindustrial levels” – when you can get back to me and apologize that you didn’t realize that’s a completely bullshit statement I might begin to take you seriously… just kidding, you’re an idiot. Either you’re as dumb as a bag of hammers or a paid troll (of course possibly both).
Let’s stop fighting! I propose the following compromise. If rising sea levels reach the lobby of the Empire State Building, or Barak Obama´’s 8 car garage on Martha’s Vineyard, then we can all agree we have a problem!
Gunther said that we should all stop fighting – I agree, in principle. I might be naive, but I didn’t think we were fighting, I just figured that some of us were more easily animated than others. I think a decent debate is how we get closer to the truth. We all need to avoid echo-chambers, confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger, and all those other tendencies of humans that make us think that everything is a polemic, others are wrong, and only we know the truth. While I appreciate Gunther’s suggestion, I’m inclined to think that by the time the water levels have reached the Washington Monument, it’ll be a little too late.
I’d suggest that we continue to follow the news, skeptically, and open-mindedly (even though much of the news “media” needs more than skepticism), and try to get people to be reasonable, and do logical things, regardless of their position. More data will come in, more ideas will be available, and if many predictions are true, then it’ll only take a few years to demonstrate it. But, getting all worked up over it won’t change anything, and besides, nothing will change anything until we force politicians to be less corrupt, we make it easier to vote them out, and hold them accountable, and get big money out, and make voting easier. Until those things are done, all that politicians do will be as little as possible to fool us into thinking they’re actually doing something.
John Pate must really feel threatened by a continued discussion. I noticed he felt obligated to pull out his credentials without explaining what area his credentials are in. But I noticed he graduated several years AFTER I did, so I’m sure he was wrong when he said he was studying science before I was born – I daresay the reverse is more likely. My degrees are in zoology, and ecology and evolution, where I’ve studied quite a few areas of the sciences (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, organic chemistry) and Warren Ewens was my statistics professor. I’ve taught a variety of biological sciences since 1979. I’ve had a few breaks from academia when I built houses, tended bar, surveyed, and more. You pulled your credentials, I’ve replied with some of mine. You should pay attention to Gunther’s suggestion, and quit the fighting and try to become a reasonable person.
Shut up Roper you’re an idiot. You accused me of rejecting all science, I pointed out I have a science degree without feeling the need to regale you with the magnificance of it, other than heading off the accusation that it was from some diploma mill. You can have whatever qualifications you like but the nonsense you write condemns you as an, at best, midwit or, even worse, a paid troll. We’ve all had this “climate change”->”AGW” BS shoved down our throats for decades now and it’s becoming truly sickening. Be assured, I would cheerfully punch you in the face until you stopped talking nonsense. I’ve had enough of being lectured to about my intellectual failings and told I’ll have to become a good communist to save the planet. I’m from the generation where the only good communist is a dead communist. In fact I used to train people to kill communists. This is beyond reasonable debate now, this is global oligarchs dictating a New World Order. It’s not new and it’s not order.
Some people simply have no humor in them anymore. John Pate sure is angry – he should get out more. Just FYI, I am not a troll, paid or otherwise. I was attracted to this dialogue because I liked the title “Everything you believe is wrong”! And then, I found that many here don’t seem to take that title to heart. At any rate, John, you’re not obligated to respond, you really do need to calm down though, next thing you’ll die from a conniption fit. Lighten up.
I’m angry more people aren’t angry. The coof lockdowns were enforced via state violence and people rolled over and took it. The climate lockdowns will no doubt be prosecuted with equal vigour. It’s way past time what is being imposed on us should be confronted forcefully. Briggs has amply demonstrated computer models are bogus as if it wasn’t blindingly obvious. Science has become dogma, a substitute for religion in legitimizing state use of force. “The science tells us you must live in fifteen minute cities, own nothing, and eat bugs, and it’s all peer reviewed and fully authorized.” There is no science any more, only politics and grift. Sadly the overwhelming majority of people are too dumb to see and understand what is going on.