_here_search_with_expressions_from_this_page ... (_text_below_will_NOT_disappear)
v. March 20, 2017
Photo: As you probably have instantly realized: Europe.... the Rhine valley near Basel in the year 3001. Covered by 30 meter desert sand.
When it comes to the climate opinion war, there are:
LOBBY _1_ is financed by those who win through the climate hysteria. They would win more money or more influence or more power or a mixture of this. This includes politicians. Politicians are with their typical frequent rescue syndrome on the hunt for electoral votes.
LOBBY _2_ is financed by those who would lose by a governmental policy against a suspected climate disaster. They might lose money or influence or power or a mixture of this.
Evidently there are two influential lobbies which benefit from a nearly unlimited money supply. The corresponding permanent opinion pressure is sufficient to cause the media to distribute the corresponding truth deformations. This also explains the evident inconsistency of so-called ultimate facts, said to be free of any doubt.
The predictions concern a future far ahead of a reasonable time period for predictions. This is a comfortable career insurance for the participating scientists. If a differing reality will happen in the future, these scientists have in the meantime become pensioners or tombstone owners.
We should compare this with the sad situation of economists. It typically takes only two years until the proof that perhaps 80 percent of their predictions were wrong.
(Photo: Nir Ofir - GlassOWater / Wikimedia Commons. Shows a desert flood in the Makhtesh Ramon area, Israel)
_EN_ =in English language: prof7.com / start page - headline: "... climate catastrophe"
_DE_ =in German language: aha7.com
_FR_ =in French language: aaazzz.com
INFORMATION _B_ :
» Climate future: Funding truth analysis EN
» Energy: Funding truth analysis? EN DE FR
Photo: You surely have guessed it instantly: The photo shows the river Rhine at Basel (Switzerland, Europe) in the year 3001 - 30 meter under the desert sand.
There should be a catalog on the Internet of the indisputable truth information. This requires a careful rational analysis of all scientific statements and reasoning related to predictions about the climate future.
Information about this truth center has to be spread among journalists. It should not any more be possible to manipulate journalists for the distribution of truth deformation.
It will be hard to admit for most that the climate crisis, how it should take place officially, might be a collective imagination. But there is a risk for just this. The suspected main errors are enshrined in the avowedly fiktivien model assumptions.
This complex methodological problem is ignored by politicians. It is a basic problem of modern democracy that the scientific intelligence level of politicians took not part in the knowledge progress during the last 200 years. This is a basic problem of the current western democracy concepts. In many countries is the majoritiy of members of parliaments too superficial and too unscientific for their responsible job. So they have to rely on lobby influence. Lobby influence will rarely cover with the truth. The truth does not have a lobby.
It is certain that at present climate changes take place and that further climate changes will occur in the future. This part of the climate predictions is easy. It was like this since the earth had been created. It is at present like this. It will be in all future like this.
Above this basic statement, we have to be modest. What is really conceivable that is to encircle a variants spectrum. This is not a forecast. People and politicians always want to pay for forecasts with a single precise outlook for the future. Scientists have to refuse so serve this demand for subjects for which only a variants spectrum can be supplied.
FUNDING / REQUIRED:
The efforts against the current truth deformation are scalable, depending from available funding. The minimum is a monthly budget of 1500 USD for at least 12 months.
The two climate lobbies have a total worldwide annual budget of more than 100 million USD. Most of this is indirectly financed by the taxpayer. Do you agree that the suggested truth lobby should get 1 percent for its truth center? This would be 1 million USD per year.
Do you think that a climate truth center has a realistic chance to get such an amount? - ??? - The truth has no lobby. But the truth has a very important advantage in opinion wars. This is more important than money supply. The truth is able to supply evidence that the truth is the truth.
FINANCIAL OFFERS: EBB-TER-CLIMA
Your msg.(with code above) to forwarder: ok @ fin7.com
(This is a module of a more comprehensive overall project. But it can also be financed independently and used.)
|-ana-pubcc-pha11465# D=17320 F=ebb-ter-clima-en.htm|