Tale Of Two Panics: The Wuhan Virus And Climate Change
While they are occurring on vastly different time scales, the COVID-19 panic and the climate change panic are remarkably similar.
Perhaps there are certain basic social panic mechanisms that always occur, which are yet to be discovered. Yet in any case, the striking similarities between these two are worth exploring a bit.
To begin with, each panic began with runaway computer models. In the COVID case, the U.S. death count was projected to be around 2,000,000, clearly calling for draconian government action, which soon followed.
That number now stands at about 60,000, about the same as a bad flu year, but the damage is well underway.
Claims that the ruinous actions brought the numbers down are belied by the countries that fared just as well without them.
Nor do we know what made the model so “hot” as it has not been analyzed, or even properly documented and released for analysis.
In the climate case, the hot models take a benign increase in atmospheric CO2 and turn it into a coming catastrophe.
We actually know how they do this using massive (and purely speculative) positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds. That these models have clearly been falsified by observation is ignored by their masters.
In both cases the speculative terror to come was heartily embraced by the mainstream media, accompanied by relentless cries for action. Predictably the public responded with fear, giving the government ample room for action.
In both cases, the results have been mandates for economically destructive abstinence. In the COVID case, the mandate is to hide thy self away. Don’t go out, don’t go to work, don’t go to school. That the economy is rapidly collapsing is no surprise.
In the climate case, the mandate is to stop using our primary source of energy — fossil fuels. Don’t drive. Don’t fly. Don’t eat meat. Build millions of windmills and solar collectors. Commit to zero-carbon suicide. That the economy is slowly collapsing is no surprise. Energy prices rise and rise.
In both cases, the ridiculous bandaid that is applied to catastrophic collapse is a so-called “stimulus.” Millions are out of work so they get just over a thousand dollars.
Windmills and solar panels do not work as needed so they get subsidies. And still, the government feeds the fear.
What is really needed in both cases is freedom and reality. Freedom from computer-driven fear, freedom from fear-driven mandates, and the reality that the problem being solved by collapse never existed in the first place.
These are both waves of panic, pure and simple. Recovery will not be easy because fear, once begun, is long-lasting.
Children were already having nightmares fueled by climate fear, now they are afraid to go outside and play. In both cases, the worst may be yet to come because the fearmongers are relentless.
Still, we will wallow out of this pit, despite the governments that put us into it.
The bigger challenge is how to prevent catastrophic panic in the future? In communication science, this sort of thing is called a “cascade.” The model results trigger the press, who trigger the people, who trigger the government.
Each step is an amplifier, whereby a hot model hurts hundreds of millions of people. Maybe the model is the place to start. Perhaps presenting catastrophic conjectures as established facts should be punishable, so people do not do it.
Giving a false alarm that causes great harm is wrong. Calling the false alarm science does not change this fact. If anything it makes it worse. Scientists are supposed to be very careful about their claims.
Of course, we also need to fight the virus, but medically not socially. We also need a workable virus prevention and protection system, especially one that prevents panic. A good way to fund this system is by redirecting money slated for foolishly fighting CO2.
Read more at CFACT
****
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Tom O
| #
I agree with the concept of the “cascade” to which he is referring. I don’t necessarily agree with the total thought process.
Actually, it doesn’t start with the model. Models do not create themselves, they are created to support an idea. Thus the starting point is with that group of people that INTEND to drive a crisis for their own purposes.
Also realize that if those that INTEND to drive the panic with their model, does not already OWN the bullhorn of the media, their intentions will not “take off.” Thus those that own/control the media are already “in bed” with those that intend to create the model that will be used to derive the false information. It then falls to their “media arm” to fan the flames until it drives the sheep into a panic that government then has to attempt to manage.
It must always be realized that there is “SOMEONE” that wants the panic to play out, and to risk being repetitive to the point of being boring, NOTHING will become of a model’s intended attempt to raise panic without the MEDIA already fully engaged. Panic “might” happen on a small scale, but it can’t reach the planet wide crisis level without the full engagement of the MSM.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Cascade panic seems to revolve around a vocal minority with great political contacts. The Swiss have a system of Citizen Initiated Referendums (CIR) which occurs routinely on a six monthly basis. This ensures that the combined intelligence of the population is brought to bear on any suggestion, and that a ‘bottom-up’ system of government applies rather than the most common ‘top-down’ variety.
The Swiss also have a provision to vote again on any referendum that proves impracticable after a trial period. What a breath of fresh air this would be to counter the numerous ‘mill stone’ regulations.
Our great IT engineers would be able to cope with introducing a system that allows this to happen reliably, at low cost, and in a timely manner – despite the expected criticism to the contrary from several ‘born to rule’ interests.
CIR ensures the population is never taken for a ride again by the many who enjoy ‘pulling the levers of power’. Approving anything that comes out of the UN must be a CIR prerequisite.
Reply
F
| #
It’s all about that Sunday Law!
http://www.markofbeast.net/page3.htm
Reply
Alan
| #
In both cases the problem is that the majority of people do not understand the foundation of all scientific knowledge. They do not have to understand the details of either the climate or the virus to see that there is an issue with both. Science is based on evidence and this means it can be repeated. If there is a disagreement then there is something wrong. One party or both are wrong and no scientist is worth listening to unless they can explain and provide evidence for their belief. Public debate is essential between scientist with opposing views and this is what we do not have. The MSM has taken over this function, presenting the view they believe is correct.
Reply