The Science is Settled; the World Will End by 2050

I was reading an article by two doofuses named Peter Watts and Daniel Brooks.  Watts is a science fiction writer and I think Brooks is a biologist in academia.

Here’s a sample:

“We’ve spent a solid year higher than 1.5 degrees Celsius; we’re wiping out species at a rate of somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 annually; insect populations are crashing; and we’re losing the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, no matter what we do at this point. Alaskapox has just claimed its first human victim, and there are over 15,000 zoonoses expected to pop up their heads and take a bite out of our asses by the end of the century. And we’re expecting the exhaustion of all arable land around 2050, which is actually kind of moot because studies from institutions as variable as MIT and the University of Melbourne suggest that global civilizational collapse is going to happen starting around 2040 or 2050.”

And this is the optimist of the pair.  The other guy is cheering on the collapse because he wants to clear the path for the few deserving humans to restart human life solidly in the pre-industrial era.  He kind of equates his role in all this as something like Hari Seldon in Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” stories.  Gee, I wonder if I can try out for the part of the Mule?

Apparently civilizational collapse is settled science.

Who knew?

You know, if I were a young person being fed this line from kindergarten to grad school I might be as crazy as the Zoomers appear to be.

So, the world is coming to an end and even the climate warriors say it can’t be fixed.  Okay, then maybe they’ll just shut up now and let us live out our lives while the world burns.  But of course, as every supposed end of the world date passes without, you know, the world ending, they just screech louder and become even more annoying.  Now the dimwits are gluing their bodies to roadways and destroying works of art.

So far normal people have reacted by dragging these human traffic cones off the road, sometimes by their feet and comically, sometimes by their hair.  But you wonder when the first of these activists will become a road pizza.  I’ve watched a lot of these road block videos and I’m waiting for the motorists to start bringing zip ties and pepper spray to these events and tie them to a light pole and mace these clowns good.  I think they richly deserve it.

For their civil disobedience, if I were the judge I’d sentence them to one year without electric power and all the things associated with modern life; clean water, refrigerated food and hygiene.  I’d let them rot in a hovel and subsist on putrid food washed down with water from the nearest rain puddle.

Look, the world isn’t going to end in 2040 or 2050, just as it didn’t end in 2024 as predicted twenty years before that.  We should be so lucky to see this clown show end!  Why shouldn’t a world that wants Joe Biden to be its leader collapse?  Collapse would be the reasonable response to such a wholly stupid system.  But it won’t end.  We all need the exercise too much to just roll over and die.

There’s an even chance that I will still be around in 2050.  And if I do, I may go hobbling around looking for Watts and Brooks and if they’re still alive I might just punch them both in the nose and tell them to apologize to the world for being so stupid.

THE END IS NIGH, REPENT!!!!!!  But can you give me a lift to the highway blockade?  It’s pretty far by bike.

Why Did They Lie

Back in 2020 when the COVID pandemic was beginning, a tight network of elite scientists soon engaged in a remarkably effective effort to deceive the world. They collectively briefed the U.S. government, World Health Organization, and any media outlets that would listen: The science was settled, this wasn’t a lab leak. Some of them went on to publish the now-infamous Proximal Origins paper in March 2020 in Nature Medicine, ranked as the most impactful science article of that year. “We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” the paper’s authors asserted.”

But now we have a much better understanding, not only of how COVID got loose but also why its origin was hidden.

“It was always a lie; one of the most consequential lies of the 21st century. Like all great lies it perfectly inverted the truth: the evidence supporting natural spillover has always been thin. Conversely, the evidence pointing to a lab leak has always been compelling and has grown substantially more persuasive with time.”

And the quoted article concludes that the lies were made for four different reasons:

  1. One group of scientists who lied were direct collaborators with Wuhan in their bat virus gain of function experiments and therefore were directly responsible for the COVID outbreak.  They lied to avoid culpability in this enormous disaster.
  2. A second group of scientists weren’t linked to the Wuhan lab but had strongly supported the idea that gain of function research was safe and therefore would be seen as partially responsible for the risky research that gave rise to COVID.  Also if COVID’s origin is pinned to gain of function research then these researchers would be deprived of this experimental practice for safety reasons.
  3. A third group had financial and reputational incentives provided by Anthony Fauci in the form of grants for research.  They sold their reputations for research dollars.
  4. And the fourth group was anybody who absolutely refused to say it was a lab leak because Donald Trump said it was.  They hated Trump so much that they would swear that the core of the sun is cold if Trump said it was hot.

In a just world, people in the first three groups should go to prison for lying about the origin of a disaster that had such horrific economic impact.  The fourth group should be mocked incessantly and any of them in the media industry should lose their jobs.

But this isn’t a just world.  It’s just the world.

Selling the Magic Pill

Not satisfied with inventing a diabetes drug that makes healthy women lose a little weight, the pharma companies are now looking for a drug that mimics the benefits of exercise.

Various approaches are being pursued.  One hormone that has shown promise is irisin.

“In 2012, scientists discovered a hormone called irisin that is released by muscles during exercise – a messenger chemical that communicates with various parts of the body. In November 2023, Wrann and her colleagues demonstrated that irisin can reach the brain and clear the toxic amyloid plaques involved in Alzheimer’s disease, a big breakthrough in understanding how exercise helps shield the brain from dementia.”

It is also believed to modulate bone growth and density and prevent loss of muscle mass.

But of course, why take a careful, reasonable subject for pharmaceutical investigation when instead you can just go Vlad the Impaler on it.

“Because scientists are still unsure which exercise hormones are the most beneficial, the ExPlas trial is taking a broad approach. Injecting blood plasma from people who exercise regularly is a simple way of transferring all these potentially beneficial hormones to patients. “The Norwegian idea is to take the plasma as the drug and give it to those who need it,” says Wrann.”

Well, sure.  Let’s drain the blood out of the young and use it to keep the centenarians alive forever.  I can just see it.  Nancy Pelosi spends some fraction of her hundreds of millions of dollars of ill-gotten insider trading gains to have the blood of virgins pumped into her.  While she’s at it why not give her a skin transplant from some poor young woman who “accidentally” dies while participating in a beauty contest on Jeffrey Epstein’s Fantasy Island now under new CIA-mediated management.

I think we’ve reached terminal stupid.  And I say this as one of the dumbest people I know.  All these physiological and metabolic studies keep demonstrating that doing natural things like getting enough sleep and exercising moderately or even just taking a walk produce all these incredible benefits that surpass by orders of magnitude the benefits of all these pharmaceuticals and without the side effects.  They pump people, even children, with psycho-active drugs to combat the depression that is caused by the horrible lifestyles we’ve created but don’t care that the drugs make people zombies.

We sit around watching tiny screens and don’t talk to each other or walk with each other and certainly don’t go out and play sports or even get together for a meal.  At least going to the gym or your basement and doing some calisthenics and going for a walk in a park three times a week won’t have the side effect of increasing your desire to commit suicide.

The FDA is a rogue government agency.  Instead of policing the pharma companies it is their co-conspirator.  A new agency needs to be created with the mandate to review the drug safety and efficacy records for the last fifty years and eliminate all of the really harmful medicines that exist.  And while they’re at it they could contract out studies with teaching hospitals to test out non-pharmaceutical regimens for various medical conditions.  And they could concentrate on the effects of diet and exercise on human beings.  The AMA should also be forced to police its membership who should spend some reasonable amount of their busy day convincing their patients to get off their fat butts and stagger around the office park at lunch hour instead of going down to Taco Bell for another three thousand calorie lunch.

Now I’m twice as guilty as the next guy.  But I at least admit it’s my own damn fault.  And I have it from the highest sources in the pharma industry that many of the miracle drugs that are supposed to counteract the ravages of our diet and exercise malpractice do more harm than good.

If the smart boys in the labs ever did figure out a pill that kept us young and fit forever without horrific side effects, I’d be the first one in line to get my dose.  But they won’t.  That’s not how the universe works.  Things like the endocrine and immune systems in our bodies are so much more complex than what we’ve so far deciphered and each component mediates so many separate responses that the tinkering that biologists and pharmacologists do is closer to voodoo than science.  Maybe after artificial intelligence has had a century to stew in human biology, we might see some progress.  But all of us will be long gone.  So, get out the weights and put down the chimichanga and forget about the magic bullet.

The baby boomers want to be young and cool forever.  Their time is running out.  What they should be doing is figuring out how to exit with at least a little bit of class.

Too Much Truth

 

“In 2020, five psychologists asked the editors of PNAS to retract their study of racial bias in police shootings. PNAS, which stands for the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, is one of the most prestigious multidisciplinary journals in the world. Retraction is an outcome no scholar wishes to experience because it signifies a serious research error and, as such, entails considerable reputational damage.”

Was it because of they made up data or because their calculations were wrong.  Nope.

“Some observers have suggested that the retraction was politically motivated. The study, which showed no evidence of racial bias in police shootings, had been used in political debates in ways that challenged calls for radical police reform; calls that had grown louder in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd. Heather Mac Donald, a research fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, claimed the article was retracted because she had cited it in a congressional hearing and in essays published in the Wall Street Journal and other right-leaning media outlets. Others denied this claim. Most importantly, Dr. Joseph Cesario, the senior author of the retracted article wrote, in response to Ms. Mac Donald, “We retracted the paper because we overstepped with the inferences we made from our data.” In other words, he maintained the reason was not political but motivated by purely scientific considerations.”

The narrative must be maintained at all costs, even if it means loss of credibility of some of the hive workers.

The truth?  What is truth?  Is your truth my truth?

Hah!

Guest Contributor – TomD – 25MAR2023 – Scientific American Goes Woke

Did a quick google (Laura Helmuth) and found she’s chief editor of Scientific American. That would be hard to believe if SA hadn’t been totally co-opted 20 or so years ago. I hate it too, I subscribed to SA for decades and absolutely devoured every issue. I remember the issue with the article on the Supernova of 1987 in the Great Crab Nebula. Whoever wrote it did a great job, it was exciting, mesmerizing, illuminating. Back then, the basis of the magazine was purely science

I watched politics and what is now called wokeism creep in. There was an editor change, don’t remember the names now, but that opened the gates. SA hired a new columnist (again don’t remember the name), who on his 2nd column, stated flatly that the verdict of history was now in and the political organizing system of the future was clear and that was socialism.

Oh, yeah? That was it for SA for me. Now you don’t know if any particular article is true or an outright lie intended to mislead you to believe in some woke bulls***t.

World Didn’t End in 2023. Greta Thunberg Exclaims, “How Dare You!”

I think her punishment for being wrong should be for her to be put in one of those dunk tanks and let all the non-climate alarmists get five baseball pitches to try and dunk her.  With any luck she’ll drown.

Best Title of the Month – Approximately Zero

That’s the title of this article in City Journal.  It’s about a report that came out on a study done by the Cochrane Collaboration which is described thus:

“The gold standard for medical evidence is the randomized clinical trial, and the gold standard for analyzing this evidence is Cochrane (formerly the Cochrane Collaboration), the world’s largest and most respected organization for evaluating health interventions. Funded by the National Institutes of Health and other nations’ health agencies, it’s an international network of reviewers, based in London, that has partnerships with the WHO and Wikipedia. Medical journals have hailed it for being “the best single resource for methodologic research” and for being “recognized worldwide as the highest standard in evidence-based healthcare.””

And here comes the result:

“We now have the most authoritative estimate of the value provided by wearing masks during the pandemic: approximately zero. The most rigorous and extensive review of the scientific literature concludes that neither surgical masks nor N95 masks have been shown to make a difference in reducing the spread of Covid-19 and other respiratory illnesses.”

But now the bad news:

“This verdict ought to be the death knell for mask mandates, but that would require the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the rest of the public-health establishment to forsake “the science”—and unfortunately, these leaders and their acolytes in the media seem as determined as ever to ignore actual science. Before the pandemic, clinical trials repeatedly showed little or no benefit from wearing masks in preventing the spread of respiratory illnesses like flu and colds. That was why, in their pre-2020 plans for dealing with a viral pandemic, the World Health Organization, the CDC, and other national public-health agencies did not recommend masking the public. But once Covid-19 arrived, magical thinking prevailed. Officials ignored the previous findings and plans, instead touting crude and easily debunked studies purporting to show that masks worked.”

So there you go.  None of this is news.  But now we see that “science” is just a magical incantation the Left uses to get their followers to raise their banner and start marching.  Maybe it’ll be good for starting fights with crazy relatives at holidays.

Will the Internal Combustion Engine be Outlawed by 2035 and What Would be the Results?

Mandating battery driven automobiles would be an enormous change to the world we live in.  It would, in one fell swoop, destroy enormous corporations like Exxon and British Petroleum.  It would require the extraction of tremendous quantities of minerals such as lithium and nickel from the ground with devastating impact on the environment that is allegedly the reason for the change.  It would require us to sacrifice the almost limitless mobility we currently enjoy for a greatly diminished horizon.  And it would require an enormous upgrade in the electrical generation and transmission infrastructure.  And hidden in the switch is a higher level of control on your access to energy.

I posed this as a question.  But what it boils down to is a simpler question.  Are the Millennials and Generation Z so docile and bought into the Climate Change argument that they’ll just go along with this change.  My personal experience with these people says the answer is yes.  They are a completely different animal from their parents and grandparents.  They are easily led into actions that are painted as socially virtuous.  They do not possess any instincts to question authority.  And they like to move with the herd they identify with.  Put simply they’re domesticated animals, let’s say sheep.  And this is a generalization that of course has millions of exceptions but as a reflection of the majority of this cohort it is accurate.

This being the case I’ve been thinking about whether there is some combination of actions or events that could change this result.  The only thing I could think of is if some states band together and resist this mandate and because of this make owning battery driven cars unattractive.  For instance, suppose that the west coast states mandate battery cars but the rest of the west refuses.  That would mean that people in the gas vehicle areas would continue to have enormous freedom to travel where they wish but the coastal state people wouldn’t have that advantage.  I guess they could rent gas vehicles at the borders of their state and use these cars to travel for business or vacation.  And even this would reinforce for these people just how pathetic battery cars are in comparison.  In the east, with the smaller size of the states, gas vehicles could quite often pass right through a battery only state without running out of gas.  For instance, let’s say that Illinois was a battery state.  Someone in Indiana could drive right through Illinois and reach Iowa or Missouri without running out of gas.

So, the west coast, the Great Lakes and the northeast would become dead zones for gas cars and enclaves for battery cars.  And the enclaves would put up restrictive laws.  They would restrict or forbid gas cars from entering their territory, much in the way they restrict gun transport.  Maybe the gas car states would retaliate to punish the battery car states with similar bans.  That might be an interesting way to start driving wedges between the red and blue states.

But the funny part of all this is that freight hauling trucks would probably still be running on fuel.  Specifically, diesel fuel but probably there won’t be any battery-powered 18-wheelers.  Will these battery car states dispense with trucks?  Will they start building railway spurs everywhere and use only electrified tracks?  I guess it’s possible.  But what’s more likely is that they’ll leave diesel trucks as an anomaly, since private citizens won’t be able to have diesel powered cars.  After all inconsistency isn’t a problem for them.  It’s a feature of a quasi-religious approach to life.

Now, this is all spit-balling.  But you can see that this push to eliminate gas powered cars could have unexpected results.  And even if the whole country goes along with it, there could be strong reactions to the problems of mandating an inferior technology over an existing superior one.  Eliminating gas cars might have the outcome of making hydrogen fueled cars suddenly attractive.  These aren’t as convenient as gas cars but they eliminate the refueling time problem inherent in the battery cars.  Trade-offs will be weighed and people will gravitate to what makes their lives easier.  Even the sheep will choose between the bad options they’ve accepted to minimize the pain they have to endure.

I love the freedom that modern automobiles give us.  Being able to pack my bags and drive five hundred miles and go camping or attend an event has become a feature of American life.  The fact that the young would let this go to “save Gaia” is extremely depressing in my mind.  But I think it’s accurate.  Once again, we will witness soon whether the American dream will be sacrificed by our descendants or whether the will to resist still exists.

Einstein They Ain’t

“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,

    As he landed his crew with care;

Supporting each man on the top of the tide

    By a finger entwined in his hair.

“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:

    That alone should encourage the crew.

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:

    What I tell you three times is true.”

(from “The Hunting of the Snark, An Agony in 8 Fits” by Lewis Carroll)

Sabine Hossenfelder is a German woman with a doctorate in theoretical physics and a YouTube channel full of videos that discuss all manner of scientific and engineering subjects.  Her area of research is “analog models of gravity.”  So, she’s trying to visualize things like black holes and think up tests to add to our understanding of these outlandish phenomena.  And she’s an obvious girl nerd.

What I like about her popular work (YouTube videos) is that she has no fear of exposing just how dysfunctional modern day physics has become.  From dark matter and dark energy to string theory, to futile attempts by particle physicists to invent extraneous particles and then waste untold millions of dollars proving they don’t exist, she exposes the transparent mediocrity and obvious academic make-work that these pseudoscientists are engaging in.  They are the hunters of the that altogether mythical snark.

And that brings me to this video.  Sabine chronicles the last fifty years of mythical particles that have been proposed and have failed to appear.  She describes how the creators of these unicorn particles keep them alive by moving the goal posts whenever the experiments fail to confirm their existence.  And finally, she shows how this form of “science” is basically worthless because it has no chance of asking the right questions needed to extend our knowledge.  She uses a couple of graphs with data and then the extrapolations associated with these junk science predictions to show how truly worthless this half century of make-work particle physics has been.

It is my belief that the only way to bring rigor back to theoretical physics is to use corporal punishment for failures in achieving successful experimental results.  I’m not talking about executions or amputations.  Nothing barbaric.  I’m talking about caning, possibly flogging.  No cat o’nine tails, nothing over five lashes.  Barely enough to draw blood.  All very civilized and calibrated to bring about the desired results.  And I’ll be fair.  The physicists can decide whether he’d prefer losing his tenure or being publicly lashed.  What could be fairer than that?

All kidding aside, scientific research, not only in this country but throughout the western world, has been stagnating and falling into disrepute.  In the social sciences it has degenerated into gobbledygook with the results of the majority of research papers being unreproducible.  Doctorates in sociology and psychology are now essentially worthless.  Even in the “hard” sciences like physics and chemistry but especially in pharmaceutical research progress at answering fundamental problems has ground to a halt.

So, it’s very refreshing for someone in the academic world to be out there declaring that the emperor has no clothes.  Now that’s not to say I agree with every one of her videos.  She had a presentation about hydrogen as a fuel, the conclusions of which I completely disagreed with.  But she at least lays out a lot of the facts and that allows an informed viewer to  judge her opinion based on them.  Kudos to Sabine.

On the more general front of scientific research today, all of this confirms something that has become clear.  Government money, especially in the United States has turned academia into a racket.  Research is a bottomless pit of money that funds unqualified “scientists” to waste resources without any hope of finding the results they are supposedly pursuing.  All they accomplish is creating a bureaucracy of people defending their paychecks via government grants.

Other than weapons research the United States government needs to get out of the research business.  If they want to incentivize scientific progress let them offer large monetary prizes for successful solutions to practical problems in the engineering and science realms, like the fabulous “cure for cancer” we’re always hearing is right around the corner.  Even if the results are more incremental than this at least we would stop incentivizing fraud.  Until then we will continue to hear about the latest search for the particle equivalent of the snark.