From drought to flood- isn't that how it usually goes?

You know that drought we've been having... 

Well, I've gotten 5.38" of rain at my house since Thursday morning*. Some places nearby have had 9" so far.

Year-to-date up until Thursday, I'd had 7.37", which was more than I thought.

At least this area is mostly flat, with no streams to flood. The playas are all overflowing. All my rain catchment is overflowing. I'm hoping my cellar isn't a cistern now.

My house isn't in a low spot, and my parents' house is on the high end of town (an unnoticeable slope).

Streets in the area are the closest thing we have to streams. Or rivers. Coming back from Clovis Thursday afternoon, there were many stalled cars in the rushing waters. The streets were running about 18" deep- more in some spots. People were trying to drive too fast for the conditions, which is normal.

Has this affected the recent water crisis? Not really, as far as refilling the aquifer or making the town's wells work better.

Just before the rain started, I saw that one of the town's water tanks was completely full. I hadn't seen that before. I'm guessing no one is watering their yard now. The other one was down a couple of feet from where it had been hovering, but is back up to what I consider normal again. I haven't figured out exactly how they are all connected (and the city has admitted they are connected in a way they shouldn't have been). This rain should take the pressure off the system.

I now have water I could filter and use if needed. 

We have more rain in the forecast over the next few days. Normally, it doesn't rain here even when the forecast says it will. We shall see.

*We got more rain overnight. Since Wednesday, we've had 6.16" in total.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Environmental devastation

I have this uncomfortable suspicion that if the world- the natural environment- is ever irreversibly destroyed, it will be due to misguided attempts to save it.

Attempts that involve socialism; giving government ever more control over everything. Allowing more government "ownership" of more land and resources.

I've witnessed things leaning in this direction in the past, and I don't trust government to get smarter any time soon.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

"What radicalized you?"

The thing that most radicalizes people against government is watching what government does.

This may be why the people who are the least aware are also the most pro-government. They may only pay attention to what government promises.

Even in that case, I'm against most of the things it promises. I don't want government's idea of "safety" and "security" imposed on me. I'll take the real dangers of liberty over the imaginary "safety" of being governed.

I've watched government destroy the environment with its programs to save it (from you and me).

I've watched government make people less safe from freelance criminals with its programs to save us from "gun violence".

I've watched government destroy liberty while preaching "freedom".
I watch as government steals property to fund gangs they claim are there to protect your property.

I've watched government murder children to "save children".

Even if those who work in government had good intentions (fewer of them do the "higher" they get), they are incapable of delivering. Watch what they do, not what they say they will do.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Government is dangerous

One of the greatest dangers facing you and me is government. Not a specific government, but the very notion of government.

Either government alone, or-- possibly the greatest danger-- government vs. government with us caught in between.

Government causes situations that endanger us. 

It meddles in other regions, creating enemies. Many of these enemies are (just like many Americans) unable or unwilling to distinguish between the government hurting them and the people in other countries who disavow what the government that rules them is doing. It isn't necessary to be my enemy just because you hate the US government. I hate it, too!

Government offers handouts, making people dependent and likely to get violent if the handouts stop. It makes people incompetent by design.

Government imports people from other countries. People who hate Americans. How does this make sense, unless it is to create trouble that you need to be resued from?

It makes it a crime for you and me to defend ourselves from freelance bad guys or from the bad guys operating on behalf of government.

Government makes up arbitrary rules that prevent you from "legally" doing things humans have always done-- things you still have the right to do-- to provide for your home.

Without government there wouldn't be excuses like "global climate change" being used against you. There wouldn't be tariffs, or egg shortages, or inflation.

Government also provokes other governments. Without government there wouldn't be missiles aimed at where you live. There wouldn't be nuclear weapons. 

Government is a net negative. I understand how so many have been brainwashed to feel (not think) it is necessary. It's still a net negative.

Government doesn't create society and give us prosperity and safety. If we have those things it's because we create them ourselves in spite of everything government is doing.

The warlords used as justification by fans of government are the very government they defend.

The more who realize this, the better off we all will be.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Faking data

Let me tell you about the time I faked data "for science".

My Wildlife Management class was assigned to survey the number of squirrels and squirrel nests in a plot of woods on the university campus. It was a wild area of many acres beside the remote free parking lot. A perfect place for hiding corpses, if someone is into that sort of thing.

The class divided into groups. Every group was free to choose their methods of survey, and we were to extrapolate from our observations to the entire area and write up a report. The group I was in decided on our method and chose a time and date to meet.

At the designated hour, we met and headed off into the woods with our notebooks. Then things fell apart.

A little backstory. I spent nearly all my time in the woods-- when I wasn't forced to be somewhere else. Rain, snow, heat, whatever. And, among friends and family, I am envied as the person mosquitos ignore. I taste bad to them or something, and many times I am completely unbothered while the people with me are covered with ravenous mosquitos and going insane from the misery.

The mosquitos in those woods that day had never heard that I should be ignored. My group fled the woods without documenting a single squirrel or squirrel nest. We were all covered in huge, white welts when we had run far enough from the trees to stop and compare. It was a new (unpleasant) experience for me. Later I found out all the other groups had done the same.

Yet, we all turned in "reports", and the "reports" were all similar enough to look like human error or like different methods of extrapolation could explain them.

Science is real and can be trusted. Humans can't be trusted to do real science when there's an incentive to make stuff up. Whether it's a bias, money, or a swarm of giant hungry mosquitos.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Politickey Bear

When you mix anything with politics, the original thing-- even if it was well-intentioned-- is destroyed and you are left with only politics.

Smokey Bear is responsible for more devastating wildfires than DEI and AGCC ("climate change") combined.

Humans, even when they try, aren't good at clearing out the underbrush and combustible detritus that collects in most dry-ish ecosystems. That takes nature and natural frequent fires. Let the stuff burn out frequently and the fires can't get hot enough to get through the bark and kill mature trees.

Let that stuff build up because you are "preventing forest fires/wildfires" and when a fire does occur-- and it will-- the fire will burn hotter and longer and mature trees will burn and create more heat and more will be destroyed.

It's understood science. Smokey Bear's message is mostly anti-science and anti-nature. Yes, it sounds nice and helpful, but it's not. I want to like him and his message, but I can't. I see the damage this campaign has done and continues to do,

Even controlled burns are better than nothing, but are usually carried out when it's already too late.

Nature is as subject to being ruined when mixed with politics as everything else. Cities, too. Politics ruins everything it touches. Will the residents (and former residents) of Los Angeles learn? I doubt it. Once people have their minds destroyed by politics, they rarely get them back.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

The real danger of "climate change"

I will agree with the climate alarmists on one point: AGCC is an existential threat. Just not in the way they claim.

Not due to climate or weather problems, but because of the things government will do, and has done, using it as justification.

So many crises are of this same type. Crime, Covid, the economy, war, "immigration"... the list goes on forever. The "problem" may or may not be real, but the threat government poses, using these "problems" as its excuse for committing evil could lead to our enslavement or extinction.

This is why government is the root problem. It's why government is and always has been The Ancestral Enemy.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Propaganda as press releases

I've mentioned several times all the mailing lists I have ended up on, probably due to my newspaper column making my email address public. Lists I really don't want to be on, but that I don't usually immediately unsubscribe from because I know I can learn things from them.

I've learned something new. Or, at least I've recently noticed something.

The "conservative"/Republican newsletters don't pretend to be anything other than biased opinion-- even when they present it as "news", they don't try to pretend to be neutral. They don't try to look like press releases.

The "progressive"/Democrat newsletters pretend to be unbiased press releases. They pretend to only be presenting the facts-- facts no one could argue with.

I get them all the time on the issue of "climate change". They have language about "how to talk about the climate", and all the experts they offer come down on the climate crisis side, but they still present themselves as unbiased information. As a neutral press release for "science".

I got one just now on the topic of "immigration". Again, all the talking points and all the experts were on one side of the issue. None on the other. Since it was presented as a neutral press release, all the bias was pro-"immigration". All the voices were obviously Democrat-adjacent.

Make of this what you will. It's just interesting data to me.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Statists don't understand

Statists don't understand economics or inflation.
They don't understand how (and why) cops cause crime.
They don't understand rights.
They don't understand legislation.
They don't understand how foreign meddling creates enemies.
They don't understand anything they want to regulate or ban.|
They don't understand simple language.
They don't understand human nature.
They don't understand history.
They don't understand the difference between the state and society.
They don't understand why free speech matters, or what it is.
They don't understand ethics or morality.
They don't understand physics or science in general, or how science works.
They don't understand democracy.
They don't understand how children learn or what inspires them.
They don't understand liberty.
They don't understand much of anything that matters when people live around other people.
They don't understand why people chafe under their control.
They don't understand government.

This list isn't close to comprehensive. The list of things statists don't understand, but think they should be in charge of anyway, is staggering.

And, despite this monumental lack of understanding they've built their entire government-supremacist edifice upon, I'm expected to let them run my life?
I don't think so.

I'm better off taking care of myself. And so are you.
I understand that you're better off making your own mistakes.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Analyzing the world around us

I can't look at anything without analyzing it. I can look at and enjoy beautiful sights, but I am going to also analyze what I'm looking at. I may not always analyze it correctly-- that's a separate issue-- but my brain is going to be working on it. It seems to serve me fairly well.

To me, understanding something is part of the beauty of it. I realize not everyone has the same experience. I've even found some people who have the opposite reaction. 

For a couple of years now, my daughter has been wanting us to watch the TV series Young Sheldon together. A couple of days ago we finally got around to starting it. We weren't too far into the first episode when she said "Dad, that's you!"

Presumably, without taking into account his math skills.

Yes, I do see some similarities. Even some that are less than flattering. I can't argue that my mind isn't analytical, though.

It's why I'm not going to buy the justifications for the state that others want so hard to believe. In my analysis, the justifications don't hold up. 

It's why I'm not going to excuse a cop who goes to the wrong door and then murders the person who answers the door holding a gun.
It's why I don't automatically believe "climate change" is a crisis.
It's why I wasn't susceptible to COVID fearmongering.
It's why I think elections are always rigged, and it matters less than some might believe.
It's why I don't care where someone was born, only what they do.
It's why, many years ago, I gave serious consideration to the argument that "we" would be better off if guns were banned, and then utterly rejected that position in its entirety.

Since I can't look at the world without analyzing everything anyway, I might as well use it in a way that seems useful to me and gives some context to what's going on. If it also gets me closer to understanding reality, that's a bonus.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Silliness: When the other shoe drops

Which will lose enough True Believers to fall out of favor first? Climate Crisis or government?

I'm betting on Climate Crisis losing its hold on people's minds first. Too many gullible people still cling to the backward cult of Statism.

I shake my head in disbelief whenever I hear someone "thinking past the sale" on AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change). They've largely overshot the target. Rather than discussing the possibility of climate change, they are trying to make everyone believe it's a proven crisis. Impending doom and disaster. And that's where they lost me.

Climate changes and will never stop changing. A static climate might not even be good. I am fully willing to consider that humans might be able to affect the planet's climate. Might. 

But, I am not convinced that if it is real it would be a guaranteed net negative, that it could be stopped now, or that stopping it wouldn't be worse than adapting to it. Treating it like a disaster is jumping to conclusions-- conclusions that just happen to align with what the authoritarian control freaks want to do to you.

I am not stupid enough to believe that more government control is the right answer to any problem. Government-- the worst environmental disaster since at least the asteroid that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs; maybe ever!-- is going to save us all from climate change? Ha!

It's not a foregone conclusion that every bad weather event, every new disease, or every novel phenomenon is due to "climate change". But that's what they are trying to sell. It's just dumb.

Yes, belief in government is just as ridiculous, but it has deeper roots. Even people who are skeptical about the scams being sold by government are still likely to believe government is necessary. It's an absurd belief, but it's going to take time for enough of them to see it for what it is.

So, expect the Climate Change narrative to collapse in your lifetime. And rest assured that government will follow. It may just take a little longer.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Climate assumptions and manipulation

I hear it more and more these days: “As weather threats intensify”, “as the weather gets more extreme”, “as climate change causes more disruption", etc. 

I don’t see intensifying threats, more extreme weather, or more disruption. Do you?

Which of us is most likely to be hallucinating, the one who sees something that isn’t there or the one who doesn’t see what someone else claims is there?

Those who say these things in this way are "thinking past the sale"; making assumptions that they hope you won't notice. 

It's a trick, regardless of whether AGCC is real or imaginary-- I'm agnostic about that-- a dishonest tactic. Just keep in mind what they are doing every time you hear them use one of those phrases. It's not because they are trying to give you correct information. It's because they are trying to manipulate you. 

They want you to give up liberty, or they mean to take it from you by force.

-

Here are some of the 

best ways to help me feel useful

Don't fall for the brainwashing

Can you tell when someone is trying to brainwash you? 

Well, one way to know is to watch out for revealing words. Such as when they say "our government" or "your government". That's a lie, but it's one most people won't catch. That also applies to "our president" or other politicians.

Another red flag is when they speak of "leaders" when talking about rulers or politicians. Another sneaky lie.

A newer trick that emerged with AGCC ("climate change") but went viral (how punny) during the Covid overreaction is to speak of "the science" when spreading the opinions of politicized "experts". Science is a process, not a proclamation. "The science" is a lie.

If they can make you accept their deceptive words without hesitation, they can fool you into believing the world is as they would prefer you believe. Often, they are trying to make you accept the legitimacy of political government-- something which can never be legitimate.

Brainwashing doesn't have to be a complete lie but could be a half-truth presented in an untruthful way. Such as what often happens with corporate "news". In fact, it's their only gimmick.

Don't let the bullies brainwash you into giving up your individual liberty. It's never worth it.

Any comfort you get from embracing the brainwashing is fleeting. The pain could last the rest of your life.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating 

so I can buy one of the two guns I'm currently craving.

I'd even do a review.

Costs of government action on coronavirus

Some whiny statists are complaining that not everyone is embracing the measures being imposed by government to "deal with" the coronapocalypse. It is claimed that they are endangering lives by "downplaying" the risk.

No, they are not endangering society, nor will they be the cause of millions (or even dozens) of extra deaths. People who are "downplaying" coronavirus are serving an important purpose. Besides disarming the panic-bomb, I mean.

What they are doing is acting as a drag chute to slow down runaway government overreach.

This is essential.

Those who object to the "downplayers" aren't adequately (or even minimally) considering the costs of government intervention. You've seen this happen in other topics as well, such as with AGCC/"climate change".

Government-supremacists are pushing the narrative that not taking the actions government promotes will cause deaths, but are ignoring the deaths which will result from doing the wrong thing, or even too much of the "right thing". They are not considering the costs and benefits of both courses.

Maybe doing nothing about COVID 19 would kill more people. Of course, you have the option of doing everything you ought to do without government mandating anything. Doing something doesn't require anything being done by government. That is a bad assumption to make. But, I will concede that ignoring the problem would probably result in some unnecessary deaths.

However...

Damaging the economy-- as government is actively doing-- will also kill people. For certain. It may, in the long run, kill more people than the coronavirus would have even if no one had done anything about it-- but we don't know. We won't know. There is no way to know because you can't rewind history and change what was done.

Yes, some people caution against comparing how many deaths are resulting now and comparing that to the total deaths in previous plagues after they were over. That makes sense. However, you can compare death rates in the midst of the event-- which is something government-supremacists don't seem to like for anyone to do. It gets in the way of the narrative they prefer.

This is why we need brakes on the speeding car of statism. Those who "downplay" the danger are those brakes. They complete the costs vs. benefits big picture for the situation. Without them you only get one side, advocating only one path. Objecting to the balance they provide is not productive or smart.

(I added a "coronavirus" tag to the blog so you can follow what I've said about this from the beginning, if you care.)

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Collision course with government supremacy

If astronomers discovered an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, and it was known it would hit Earth with a 100% probability, would that necessitate "martial law"; government "suspending" (violating) your rights?

No, of course not. They would use it as an excuse, as "justification", but it would be a lie to do so. Government supremacy is always a lie.

Climate change (AGCC) is the same sort of situation.

Even if it is real, even if it is primarily caused by human activity, even if it is a net negative, and even if it is preventable, that's not a real reason to permit government supremacy.

In fact, this kind of oppression limits the options people could try in order to survive or to avert disaster. Limiting choices and experimentation is never a good survival strategy. In this, as in all of life, government needs to stay out of the way.

People thrash at the branches and leaves while ignoring the root issue, but the root is all that really matters.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Does Greta need better fake credentials?

Recently some government functionary told angry teen Greta that before she scolds Americans on what she believes we should be doing to "fix" AGCC (climate change), she needs to go study economics.

Well, sure... that might be helpful... unless she studies economics at a college or university where she'll be cheated out of learning economics, but will instead be trained in Keynesian "economics"; fake economics.

Fake credentials-- like degrees in Keynesian "economics" and "political science" [sic]-- are a big problem which seems to be getting bigger with time. It wouldn't be such a problem if people weren't trained to see credentials as automatically valid and "authoritative", even when they are in phony courses.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Scientific consensus

Why is anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) about the only scientific topic where the "consensus of scientists" is still supposed to be the final word, shutting down any further discussion? You don't hear many other scientific topics described in that way.

Why is that?

I think it may relate to the worshipful way most people think of democracy. If "everyone" goes along with one way, it must be the right way.

But does that make sense?

"Ninety-seven percent of doctors agree: This medicine/treatment is all you need, there is nothing more to discuss on the matter! The science is settled!" How many times in the past has this been the case, only to be dismantled by those who didn't consider it settled?

"Ninety-seven percent of physicists agree that physics is done. No need to study or look for any more forces or particles. We know all we can know. The science is settled." And, again, how many times has this been claimed, only to be overturned by some maverick who wouldn't go along with the consensus of the crowd?

How often did the general population just accept the "scientific consensus" at face value-- to their detriment-- until the consensus was disrupted?

So, if "all scientists" agree that the climate is changing, the change is due to human activity, it will be a net negative, it can be fixed, and that governments are the only thing which can "save the world", then gullible people jump on that bandwagon. "All scientists" agree, so it must be true! Right?

Strange how this problem and their proposed solution gives power and money to those who are largely "funding" the research. If some other science issue could give this much power and money to States, how quickly do you think they'd discover some crisis that only governments could exploit... I mean, "solve"? Maybe if the climate change hysteria dies down, they will find another issue to exploit. Unless political government evaporates before then.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

"Green" and angry

A few days ago I let slip that the face of the Swedish Climate Troll, Greta Whatsername, triggers in me a desire to punch it.

I then immediately-- in the same post-- included that I wouldn't, because I know I have no right to do so.

Still, she's got such an angry, nagging face.

I've never seen a face like hers which didn't bring me misery. It feels personal. And, the only clip I've ever seen of her speaking was one where she was screaming something like "How dare you ruin my childhood!" Not the best way to make me join your cause, Climate Troll Greta. Especially since the only one who ruined your childhood was you-- and those who terrorized you and are now using you as a tool to promote their agenda of fear and hysteria. But it wasn't me.

I'm not so stupid that I'd go out and burn a forest just to spite her, but she doesn't inspire me to lift a finger that I wasn't already planning to lift.

It's not that I don't care about the climate; it's that I'm not convinced of the political AGCC narrative. I don't have enough information to know the reality of the situation, but I know the solution isn't more government. It never is.

But, maybe I was wrong to admit the visceral reaction I have to seeing her nagging face.

One commenter called me some colorful names and characterized me as "wanting to punch a little girl bc [sic] they don't like her expressions".

First off, 16 years-old is not "a little girl". She may not be an adult, but she's no longer a little girl (yeah, there is an in-between stage; it's not either/or). Plus, if she's old enough to nag the world and advocate using government aggression against me, she's old enough to face the consequences of her choices. Yet, I still wouldn't punch her, even though her face seems to beg for it. I don't do that. Not even to Swedish Climate Trolls. Because I'm not a monster.

She would be perfectly safe if she were sitting with me to discuss the climate. Unless she attacked me, anyway. And, if she did, she's the monster. Come to think of it, advocating using government against me is an attack... but I wouldn't punch her for it. So I guess we see who the real monster is after all.

I suspect she sides with those who were recently advocating going into the streets, wearing masks, and punching anyone who disagreed with their "social justice" agenda-- or that they side with her.

Statists see what they want to see. They interpret everyone else according to their own shrunken world view. If you admit a human flaw they immediately assume you'd act on it in the same way they would if they had such a flaw-- using freelance or political aggression. If they were honest, they'd... never mind. They aren't.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

A simple question for "climate activists"

I remain unconvinced of the crisis of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. And even more skeptical that government is the solution.

If I could ask one question of all "climate activists", this would be the question I'd ask:

"If you could get everything you wanted-- if you had the political power to impose your every wish on the whole world-- what would you do to fix it?"

I really want to know. Wouldn't you like to get them to answer that?

Then please ask them, wherever you encounter them. Let's get their agenda out in the open.

I already asked one such activist, in the comments to that TED talk linked above, and someone else (who I suppose considers herself a "climate activist", too) answered.

Here's what she said:

"I would teach the physicists what they are misunderstanding. Then together we would re-educate the world. All current methods of heating and powering transport would then be replaced. The earth could thereafter be rehabilitated."

Hmmm. Seems a little fuzzy to me, heavily reliant on "and then a miracle occurs". And a bit arrogant. So I asked for some clarification:

"What are physicists misunderstanding? How do you know the misunderstanding is theirs? Do you have an adequate replacement energy source available and ready today? Have you considered possible unintended consequences?"

Her response:

"Are you a physicist?
There is no unified theory as yet. I am not an engineer, my expertise is in theoretical physics - universal law, natural science and philosophy. The world will not solve its climate issues - and all other issues, medical etc, - until we are all working from a unified theory of fundamental physics. Once science based on one unified theory is being taught in all schools, it will not take everyone long to develop new technology based upon it.
However, as I do not know what the possible unintended consequences are, - and I think that is a very good question, I would like to talk to a few physicists first. However, we really don’t have a choice."

So I replied:

"I am not a physicist.So, are you referring to a Grand Unified Theory ("GUT") as a way to know how to solve the problem of an adequate replacement power source? If a GUT is discovered it would significantly improve scientific understanding and open all sorts of new possibilities. I'd love to see that happen.But what do you propose in the meantime?"

Here was her response:

"Yes, I am referring to a Grand Unified Theory. It has already been 'discovered' - (it actually had to be learnt). Knowledge of it by someone, however, doesn’t mean that suddenly everyone will understand everything. It is a vastly more complex situation than this. If it was as simple as just a couple of small things that everyone was missing, it wouldn’t be so great a problem.
There is no 'meantime.'"

Wait. I thought she said "There is no unified theory as yet", but now she says there is? So, I replied:

"I wasn't aware anyone had discovered/learned a Grand Unified Theory. (Could you direct me to somewhere I can learn about it? I keep coming up empty. Everything I find refers to it as a theory without experimental confirmation.) Why hasn't this knowledge been implemented in new technologies to generate power?
What I mean by 'meantime' is what to do until everyone learns of the GUT and incorporates that knowledge into the technology they develop and use. How do you get the word out in a useable way? Will the GUT be enough, or will a Unified Field Theory/"Theory of Everything" be necessary to really make the difference?"

She replied:

"I’m sorry, but explaining the theory to just one person at a time is inefficient. We do not have time to do it this way. (if you wish to contact me, however, that is fine)
It is especially inefficient to waste my time by calling a “unified theory of everything” different names.
I described exactly how I would get the word out in a usable way. First, I would teach the physicists what they are misunderstanding. Then together we would re-educate the world. All current methods of heating and powering transport would then be replaced. The earth could thereafter be rehabilitated.
I then explained that there was no unified theory being taught mainstream as yet. I then said that the world will not solve its climate issues - and all other issues, medical etc, - until we are all working from a unified theory of fundamental physics. And then I said “Once science based on one unified theory is being taught in all schools, it will not take everyone long to develop new technology based upon it.”
So, no, there isn’t anywhere yet that you can learn from me, because I cannot find anyone yet in the field of physics to discuss this with me, one-on-one and in detail, and learn from me.
I am barely able to keep up with incorrect theory because different fields of science have their own jargon that changes by the minute. We can solve this together. We must have a common language for describing how the world works, otherwise we will always argue and not solve anything.
I will keep working, however, on my own, and if I can, I will teach on my own, regardless. That is what I am doing “meantime.” I am really frustrated with this situation because, given help, I could turn this climate change problem around tomorrow."

It's interesting to me that someone who wants to teach physicists what they are misunderstanding doesn't realize that "Grand Unified Theory" and "Unified Field Theory" are different things. And I had such hopes for a solution.

Anyway, I closed with:

"It sounds like you should start a website where you explain it all in detail, then spread it around and let it be shared among the population and physicists. Much more efficient than explaining it one person at a time."

If nothing else, it would be good for a laugh. But, no. She can't do that:

"No, it is far too complex to do it this way; many have tried.
I would effectively have to rewrite the dictionary. There are too many concepts about such basic fundamentals starting with electricity, magnetism and polarization, for example, that need to be taught properly. And that is just the start. I don’t have time for that. It would be better if someone in the field of physics would listen to me. I think a 'top-down' approach would be better."

Too complex, she doesn't have time, and if only physicists would listen to her explain her perpetual motion generator or whatnot she could change the world. Or maybe she is delusional and that's why no physicist will listen to her. Which explanation seems more likely?

It was probably unkind of me to play her for so long. But if this is representative of those who believe in AGCC (which I doubt it is) then their only hope is to have their woo-woo imposed by the State.

If you can't get the change you want voluntarily, by making a good argument and convincing people, you go for the "top-down approach" like any other bully would.

I think this shows she has no clue what to do, beyond imagining she has special information.

But, really, ask other "climate activists" the question and see where it leads.

(My other "climate change" skepticism posts can be found here.)

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Society's lies

Just go along with the covey

I've never been good at pretending lies are truth.
Not even when it makes people angry.

This has gotten me in trouble in school, in business, online, and in other social realms.

It's why I can't pretend cops and the military are heroes, why I don't buy into "transgender" stuff, why I don't confuse schooling for education, and why I am skeptical of AGCC dictates.

This is why I can't go along with the claim that government is necessary, and why I don't fetishize democracy or consider politics anything other than bullying.

It's why I don't fall for the claim that "taxation" is somehow not theft because someone made up a "law".

It's why I can't pretend rights depend on who you are, what you do, where you were born, historical documents, or the opinions of some government gang. All humans have equal and identical rights; any other claim is a lie.

I realize people may have their reasons for preferring a lie to the truth. I get that. Lies can be comforting and they often feel safe. They can make you feel better about yourself or your loved ones. They can make you fit in better with the crowd.

But I won't lie and say I agree just to make someone feel better or to be one of the "cool kids". Even knowing that this has a cost. The best I can do is to stay silent when confronted by a supporter of one of the popular lies-- there's no argument against delusion. I can't always manage even that, but I'm getting better at it.

-

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.