Having been interested in science (in general), and specifically marine biology and meteorology since I was a young child, I always knew the hubris and arrogance of mankind would be it's downfall. Nature has "8 ways to Sunday" (to quote Schumer) of getting back at those who attempt to control her. Think Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End when the 9 Pirate Lords finally free Calypso from her earthly shackles. She goes on to create the biggest tempest man had seen to that point and sank th ships who sook to control her the most. She also claimed her love, Davey Jones, as payment for the sin of weather control.
Although I am not a scientist (couldn't get past the obligatory and prerequisite mind control indoctrination courses) I have never lost the love of science. I taught myself how to "read" the weather, listened closely to GrandpaFree (probably the best person I knew who could "read" weather patterns in the old ways), learned some of NOAAs tricks they teach the Naval Meteorology Officers when I was a Sailor, and have paid close attention to "muh climate change" debate and its so-called trove of "evidence." Needless to say, the data is all bunk. Humans have contributed what amounts to a "near zero" effect, cumulatively, since our discovery of fire. 0.0001% of ALL global effects since the dawn of humanity can be attributed to human influenced climate change.
To put this into perspective, Edward Teller, who went on to head the H-Bomb project, had fears that a runaway nuclear reaction could occur if hydrogen was ignited in the atmosphere during the Trinity Atomic Bomb Test @ Los Alamos. The statistical chance was less than 3:1,000,00 chances. Not a zero, but still statistically impossible.
Scientists will never admit it's a statistical "zero sum" because there is always a chance, no matter how slight. In mathematics, on can never achieve a true zero sum. Conversely, one can never achieve a 100% total sum. And the media and so-called "leaders" of this world pad numbers, use faulty data, and/or manipulate findings by allowing the media heads to distort everything in order to push a certain narrative. [they] know [they] can't enact certain "changes" or laws, edicts, etc without the public's consent. [they] rule using fear based arguments, not logic and reason. Which is ironic, since [they] supposedly espouse logic and reason in [their] arguments. This is what's called a logical fallacy.
That being said, humanity IS capable of controlling the environment and its inhabitants thru poisoning relatively small areas. Areas such as the Gulf of Mexico or the Baltic Sea or Gulf of Alaska by ordering oil spills. Or poisoning our groundwater thru the use of DDT or glyphosate. Or poisoning as much surface area thru the use of chemtrails, or thru the use of other "forever" chemicals like Teflon in our cooking utensils.
This revelation that most of the temp guages used in monitoring our global temps are centered in urban or suburban, mostly concreted areas makes sense, from a control point of view. If humanity can't fully control the weather, what better way to control the population than thru the use of fear based tactics?
Having been interested in science (in general), and specifically marine biology and meteorology since I was a young child, I always knew the hubris and arrogance of mankind would be it's downfall. Nature has "8 ways to Sunday" (to quote Schumer) of getting back at those who attempt to control her. Think Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End when the 9 Pirate Lords finally free Calypso from her earthly shackles. She goes on to create the biggest tempest man had seen to that point and sank th ships who sook to control her the most. She also claimed her love, Davey Jones, as payment for the sin of weather control.
Although I am not a scientist (couldn't get past the obligatory and prerequisite mind control indoctrination courses) I have never lost the love of science. I taught myself how to "read" the weather, listened closely to GrandpaFree (probably the best person I knew who could "read" weather patterns in the old ways), learned some of NOAAs tricks they teach the Naval Meteorology Officers when I was a Sailor, and have paid close attention to "muh climate change" debate and its so-called trove of "evidence." Needless to say, the data is all bunk. Humans have contributed what amounts to a "near zero" effect, cumulatively, since our discovery of fire. 0.0001% of ALL global effects since the dawn of humanity can be attributed to human influenced climate change.
To put this into perspective, Edward Teller, who went on to head the H-Bomb project, had fears that a runaway nuclear reaction could occur if hydrogen was ignited in the atmosphere during the Trinity Atomic Bomb Test @ Los Alamos. The statistical chance was less than 3:1,000,00 chances. Not a zero, but still statistically impossible.
Scientists will never admit it's a statistical "zero sum" because there is always a chance, no matter how slight. In mathematics, on can never achieve a true zero sum. Conversely, one can never achieve a 100% total sum. And the media and so-called "leaders" of this world pad numbers, use faulty data, and/or manipulate findings by allowing the media heads to distort everything in order to push a certain narrative. [they] know [they] can't enact certain "changes" or laws, edicts, etc without the public's consent. [they] rule using fear based arguments, not logic and reason. Which is ironic, since [they] supposedly espouse logic and reason in [their] arguments. This is what's called a logical fallacy.
That being said, humanity IS capable of controlling the environment and its inhabitants thru poisoning relatively small areas. Areas such as the Gulf of Mexico or the Baltic Sea or Gulf of Alaska by ordering oil spills. Or poisoning our groundwater thru the use of DDT or glyphosate. Or poisoning as much surface area thru the use of chemtrails, or thru the use of other "forever" chemicals like Teflon in our cooking utensils.
This revelation that most of the temp guages used in monitoring our global temps are centered in urban or suburban, mostly concreted areas makes sense, from a control point of view. If humanity can't fully control the weather, what better way to control the population than thru the use of fear based tactics?