...
I promise you, in a year or two the climate crisis will have progressed to the point where we have passed irreversible points.
...
The greatest pollution is that of the minds of the environmental activists who spread their catastrophism and their apocalyptic predictions everywhere, promising climatic hell if one does not adhere to their cause, that of the goddess Nature, as the Catholic religion did for centuries for its own god. The followers of the new sect of environmentalism are constantly blaming man, accusing him of being the cause of all evils, just as religion used to do: a famine, a war, an epidemic, man's fault for having offended God. Now it is man's fault for offending Nature.
Many of these followers are less concerned with Nature than with its instrumentalization to serve their real cause, which is political, their fight against capitalism and the West in general, for degrowth and therefore the return to a few centuries ago that these uneducated people imagine as being pleasant to live when life was much harder than today.
If these people were honest, they would not waste the planet's resources by using massively PCs, smartphones, forums, social networks infrastructures and datacenters that they consider polluting, to spread their propaganda. But they are hypocrites, most of them live like everybody else but like the pedophile priests who however preach the love of the neighbor, they harass us with their message "do as I say, not as I do".
If we take a closer look at the predictions of the IPCC, we can clearly see that their models are regularly wrong by a factor of two to three over periods of only 5 years in the past, that all their models diverge, that the climate sensitivity is constantly corrected, probably according to what there is to prove, and that physicists regularly correct climatologists who have a very poor command of physics, especially thermodynamics and statistical processing, which are key areas of their discipline. Add to this their politicization and their monopoly of the good word, a method that is never seen elsewhere in science where independent teams verify what others assert, and we understand that it is not scientific. Climatology is at best research, and research is not yet science because science is knowledge.
What we can say with certainty is that climatology today does not have the science that could allow it to make long-term predictions, and that the fight against global warming is not only futile but will create far more problems than it solves, collapsing the world economy and impoverishing everyone if the recommended measures are implemented. Those who advocate these drastic methods are neo-Malthusians.
So to come back to the subject, if Holcomb's machine works, it would obviously be a fantastic advance for humanity, with the elimination of fossil fuels and above all the emergence of a considerable number of new technologies, prevented today from existing because of the cost of energy or the difficulty to make it portable. If we can help in this way, we must. Contrary to the followers of the fashionable religion, the religion Nature, if we are here it is I suppose, that we think that the technology can be put at the service of the humanity, that it can progress to improve at the same time our living conditions, comfort, health and environment, and consequently to be a progress not only material but also of ideas as all the technological advances were it in the past (the wheel which improves the transport favoured the exchanges between people, the printing press allowed to democratize the culture, the radio allowed to inform even in the most remote corners of the earth, Internet put at the disposal of all the academic knowledge...).
We benefit today from what our forefathers did and the risks they took to do it. Contrary to the message of the narrow-minded environmentalists who want to impose on future generations their current conception of a supposedly better world, our generation has the same duty as our forefathers towards future generations, not to preserve the heritage but to bring its new contribution, also taking its risk of novelty, all for a future that we do not know, that we build little by little, and that must remain open to the people of the future.
Author
Topic: A true OU Breakthrough..? Holcomb scientific research (Read 11120 times)
