How can you call yourself “intelligent” when you can’t understand simplest concepts like “consent” and you’re completely disconnected from human nature and feelings?
What better proof that the system is broken than the broken souls it produces industrially?

Fake news from Breitbart, Tucker didn’t tie him to human engineering, Tucker observed he’s so tied he barely speaks about anything else. More evidence below

You may have seen this show, yet Carlson gave you but a peak. I give you more than you can carry.
Warning: The only people who will not lose sleep over this are those who paid attention to this scandal when it started, almost a decade ago, highest echelon elites and the pseudo-people who clap at Jimmy Kimmel’s IQ-19 brainfarts.

This video has been recorded in 2013, but the guys was already making waves since 2012, see below.

Note from TED’s YouTube channel, under this video: Comments are disabled on this video. We made this difficult decision for the TED Archive because we believe that a well-moderated conversation allows for better commentary from more people and more viewpoints. Studies show that aggressive and hateful comments silence other commenters and drive them away; unfortunately, YouTube’s comment moderation tools are simply not up to the task of allowing us to monitor comments on so many videos at once. (We’d love to see this change, YouTube.) So for now, if you’d like to comment on this talk, please use Facebook, Twitter or G+ to discuss with your networks”

Dude’s credentials are almost as spectacular as his talk. Meaning this is what it takes to prosper in the scientific environment lately.

2007

He’s always been this freaky and obsessed with shortening people, he must be the polar opposite of tall.

The Ashley Treatment: Best Interests, Convenience, and Parental Decision-Making

by S. Matthew Liao , Julian Savulescu , and Mark Sheehan

“As a general point, it is entirely conceivable that in some natural, social, or psychological circumstances, having a normal body may be a disadvantage. In H.G. Wells’ short story “The Country of the Blind,” Nunez, a mountaineer in the Andes, falls and comes upon the Country of the Blind. Nunez has normal vision, but in this society of blind people, he is disadvantaged, and he eventually consents to have his eyes removed. Similarly, in a world of loud noise, being able to hear could be a disadvantage. In the case of apotemnophilia—a body dysmorphic disorder in which the patient feels incomplete possessing all four limbs—doctors justify amputation by reasoning that the patient’s psychology demands it. In Ashley’s case, having a normal-sized body could be a disadvantage.”

SOURCE

2012

Bioengineer humans to tackle climate change, say philosophers

Posted by Leo Hickman, Wednesday 14 March 2012 @ theguardian.com

Authors defend controversial academic paper saying their online critics have misunderstood nature of philosophical inquiry

Leo blog : Xbox game Deus Ex which is bio-modification of humans
Screen grab of a character from the computer game Deus Ex : Human Revolution, which is about bio-modification of humans. Photograph: deusex.com

Earlier this week, The Atlantic ran an eye-catching, disturbing interview with a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University called S. Matthew Liao. He was invited to discuss a forthcoming paper he has co-authored which will soon be published in the journal Ethics, Policy & Environment.

But within just a few hours of the interview going live a torrent of outrage and abuse was being directed towards him online. As I tweeted at the time, the interview was indeed “unsettling”. Liao explained how his paper – entitled, “Human Engineering and Climate Change” – explored the so-far-ignored subject of how “biomedical modifications of humans” could be used to “mitigate and/or adapt to climate change“. The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and “preimplantation genetic diagnosis”; lowering birth-rates through “cognitive enhancement”; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the “pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy” to engender a better “correlation” with environmental problems.

Both the interview and the paper itself include a prominent disclaimer. As the paper says:

To be clear, we shall not argue that human engineering ought to be adopted; such a claim would require far more exposition and argument than we have space for here. Our central aim here is to show that human engineering deserves consideration alongside other solutions in the debate about how to solve the problem of climate change. Also, as we envisage it, human engineering would be a voluntary activity – possibly supported by incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored health care – rather than a coerced, mandatory activity.

However, that wasn’t enough to prevent an extremely hostile reception to such ideas. Climate sceptics were the first to vent their anger. Somewhat inevitability, terms such as “eugenics”, “Nazis” and “eco fascists” were quickly being bandied around. One sceptic blogger said that the “sick” Liao and his co-authors should be “kept in Guantanamo”. Another said the paper “presages the death of science, and indeed the death of reason, in the West”.

But prominent environmentalists were also keen to denounce the paper. Bill McKibben tweeted that the paper contained the “worst climate change solutions of all time”. Mark Lynas tweeted that he thought it was an “early April Fool”. It was hard to disagree.

So, were the philosophers who co-wrote the paper surprised by the reaction? Or had all their critics misunderstood what they were trying to achieve? I contacted each of the authors in turn, and a co-editor of the journal, and asked them.

Liao was the first to respond:

First, I think that our paper/position is being grossly misrepresented by some people online. As we specifically say in our paper, a) we are not necessarily endorsing any of the solutions we have canvassed; and b) if these solutions were available, it should be up to individuals to adopt them voluntarily. Ross Anderson, the writer of the Atlantic interview, also makes this clear.
Secondly, the term “eugenics” often gets brought up whenever people mention human enhancements. This is unfortunate because my co-authors and I are positively against any form of coercion of the sort the Nazis had done in the past (segregation, sterilization, and genocide). The way the term ‘eugenics’ is used by some of the people who are against our proposal, it seems that voluntary use of contraception would be a form of eugenics.
Finally, many people who are against our proposal explicitly deny that climate change is really a problem. Given this, it is not surprising that they would find our solution to what they perceive as a “non-problem” incredible. Indeed, some of these people have also said that encouraging people to drive less is an overreaction to climate change. Our paper is intended for those who believe that i) climate change is a real problem; and ii) who, owing to i), are willing to take seriously geoengineering. All bets are off if someone doesn’t accept i).

I then sent the following questions to Liao’s co-authors, Dr Anders Sandberg and Dr Rebecca Roache, both based at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute. (Roache was at the institute when the paper was first being drafted 18 months ago, but has since left to be a “full-time mum”.)

Has your paper been misrepresented online? If so, how and why?

Sandberg: Most reactions are not based on what we actually wrote. People who comment on anything online have usually not read it, and then people comment on them, and so on. You are lucky if people remember the original topic, let alone any argument.
People seem to assume we are some kind of totalitarian climate doomsters who advocate biotechnological control over people. What we are actually saying is that changing our biology might be part of solving environmental problems, and that some changes might not just be permissible but work well with a liberal ethics.
Climate change and many other problems have upstream and downstream solutions. For example, 1) human consumption leads to 2) a demand for production and energy, which leads to 3) industry, which leads to 4) greenhouse gas emissions, which lead to 5) planetary heating, which leads to 6) bad consequences. One solution might be to try to consume less (fix 2). We can also make less emissive industry (fix the 3-4 link), remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (reduce 4), geoengineering that cools the planet (reduce 5) or adapt to a changed world (handle 6). Typically people complain about the downstream solutions like geoengineering that they are risky or don’t actually solve the cause of the problem, and say we should go for upstream solutions (where a small shift affects the rest of the chain). So, what would be the most upstream solution? Change human desires or consumption. While this can be done partially by persuasion and culture, there are many strong evolved drivers in human nature that act against it. But we can also affect the drivers.
For example, making people smarter is likely to make them better at solving environmental problems, caring about the environment, adopting a more long-term stance, cooperate better and have fewer children. It is of course desirable for a long list of other reasons too, and many people would freely choose to use enhancements to achieve this even if they cared little about the world. If there was a modification that removed the desire for meat, it would likely have not just green effects but also benefit health and animal welfare – again many might decide to go for it, with no external compulsion.

Roache: Yes. We argue that it might be worth considering making available some seemingly bizarre solutions to climate change, for people to use or not as they wish. We have been represented as arguing – among other things – that people should be forced to adopt these bizarre measures for the good of the environment. I imagine that this is partly because people assume that nobody would dream up such bizarre solutions to climate change unless they believed that they should be implemented. Philosophers, however, spend a lot of time discussing views that they do not necessarily endorse – it’s part of the learning process.

What do you say to those who are claiming you and your fellow authors are “eco Nazis”, “eugenicists” etc, for publishing this paper?

Sandberg: Well, none of us are deep greens or totalitarian. We are fairly typical liberal academics thinking about the world. In fact, in my normal work with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern. Certainly a problem, but unlikely to wipe out humanity. That probably disqualifies me from being an eco Nazi.
Certainly one can imagine nasty governments imposing various green policies on the population, forcing them to act in ways that benefit the environment. But our paper doesn’t give them any particular ethical support: if you are willing to infringe on people’s reproductory liberty, why not just prevent them from consuming as much as they want? Green totalitarianism might be possible, but it is hardly moral – because it is totalitarian and doesn’t respect individual rights.
Of course, to many people even a hint that our biology might be subject to political considerations is horrific. Yet they do not seem to worry much about the political decisions that are constantly being made about our reproduction (laws against reproductive cloning are political decisons about the desired form of human reproduction), nutrition or health. We are living in an era of biopolitics. It is better to make the issues explicit and discuss them than assume they will go away if we ignore them.
I think parents should be allowed to select genes for their children (“liberal eugenics” in the term of Nicholas Agar) – the reason eugenics in the past has been such a bad thing was because it was 1) coercive, 2) imposed centrally by the state, and 3) often based on bad science. If one can avoid these problems I do think it could be useful: in that sense I am an eugenicist. However, I suspect other technologies are going to change our species faster than genetics.

Roache: I say that they haven’t read the paper! We explicitly state that we do not endorse coercion, and that we envisage human engineering to be a voluntary activity. The solutions we discuss may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but that does not entail they are not worth exploring.

Did you predict this level/type of response?

Sandberg: A bit. When I wrote the paper I felt I was to some extent trolling – I admit I was delighted when some of my normally rather bio-radical colleagues protested against the idea after a presentation we gave here in Oxford. I was a bit more surprised that the blogosphere and popular press took notice of the paper.
The problem with arousing emotions is that most people then become very stimulus-response driven. They don’t think very deeply about the issue, they react instead. We hoped the paper would be exciting enough to stimulate discussion but not to preclude thinking.
You could claim this paper is a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that we should aim for upstream solutions to environmental problems rather than downstream solutions. I’m not convinced about that: there might indeed be win-win enhancements that are both good for us individually, for society and for the environment, and they should be supported. What the paper does is to take environmental goals and collide them with some common bioethical intuitions (the sacredness of the natural, that human biology must not be touched, etc.) – that hopefully produces an uncomfortable itch that will stimulate some real thinking about what we want to give prioritiy. Could there be ethical reasons not to do things that would help the environment? Could there be environmental needs so pressing we would be forced to budge our biological policies?

Roache: It was always a possibility. Our normally unflappable bioethicist colleagues were shocked by the idea of human engineering, so the wider public was bound to find it ghastly. The fact that we presented it as a response to the widely-discussed problem of climate change is also relevant here: it’s not unusual for philosophers to write about wacky and horrifying ideas, but non-philosophers are rarely interested in them because they often have no obvious bearing on real life. For example, I was working on this paper at around the same time as I was working on a paper about whether it is conceptually possible for more than one person to inhabit a single body; but the publication of the latter passed without comment from the Daily Mail.

Ultimately, what were you trying to achieve with the paper? Are
people interpreting it too literally, namely, believing you personally
would advocate for these ideas?

Sandberg: People are unused to ethical analysis. In philosophy we take ideas and test them to destruction. This means that we often bring up concepts or lines of thought we do not personally believe in and then argue them as strongly as possible to see where they go and what we can learn. This is very different from everyday life where most people who state an idea or belief also believe in it – and it makes people misunderstand this kind of thinking. To make matters worse most people debating it will not read the paper and see how we discuss the ethical problems or why even we think it is a preposterous idea… they will just think some eggheads blithely promote eugenics.
The core idea is that we should not imagine that our biological nature is exempt from being part of a potential solution to environmental problems. In our opinion methods of changing people, habits, technology or the environment are all possible approaches, and what matters is whether they work, have good effects, are acceptable and practical, not what kind of method they are.
My personal view is that human engineering on its own is unlikely to fix climate change. The methods we mention are all too weak, indirect and slow. But thinking about out-of-the-box approaches is useful: too much of the climate debate has been forced into doctrinaire camps where any consideration of alternatives is heresy. Big complex problems are unlikely to have simple and neat solutions: we need to investigate (and perhaps use) a lot of approaches.
I do think that in the long run humanity has to become posthuman if it wants to be truly sustainable. I have a little essay about it here:
http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/03/a_really_green_and_sustainable_humanity.html
But this is not feasible for the next few decades, at the very least.

Roache: We wanted to encourage people to think about a group of solutions to climate change that have so far been ignored, despite the fact that in many cases it would be scientifically possible to implement them. Human engineering may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but this does not mean it could not turn out to be feasible and promising: telephones, “test tube babies”, and personal computers are all important aspects of modern life that were once regarded as bizarre and unrealistic. Of course, human engineering may ultimately be unworkable; but this should be because it is impossible to implement, or because its costs outweigh its benefits. It should not be rejected merely because, at first glance, it seems unappealing. And discussing it is itself valuable: it is by exploring and assessing potential responses to a problem that we make progress towards solving it.

I also asked Benjamin Hale, assistant professor of philosophy and environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and co-editor of Ethics, Policy & Environment, why the paper is being published and whether the journal anticipated this sort of response. He said:

We accept submissions from scholars across the academic community. The article went through the same double blind peer reviewed process that all of our articles go through. We haven’t received any questions on it yet. You’re our first. By publishing this article, we are not endorsing it at all. We have circulated the paper widely and are publishing between seven to nine critical responses from ethicists across the field.
The things I’ve seen written on it so far appear to miss the point. The article was clearly not a positive policy proposal. Instead, it was a series of Swiftian philosophical thought experiments more designed to contextualize actively discussed schemes like geoengineering, written by a professor who is not otherwise engaged with the climate community. In the same issue, we will be publishing several other articles critical of geoengineering.

In total, the responses indicate that both the authors and journal stand squarely behind the controversial paper and believe its critics have woefully misinterpreted its contents and the reasons for publishing it. One thing is sure: they have certainly been successful in courting attention (not to be sniffed at in the world of academic publishing, or any form of publishing, for that matter).

But if their aim was to generate a pensive, wide-ranging philosophical debate on the subject of human engineering and climate change I’m not convinced they have been successful. Well, not yet at least, if the online reaction is anything to go by. There remains a danger, too, that the paper will be used in the future as a stick to attack any suggestion of environmental action: “Let them do this, and this will be next on their agenda.” However, I agree with the authors that we should not fear debating such ideas – even if the end result is that we still roundly reject them.

2015

2017

He returns to TED with optogenetics and other DARPA-funded nightmares. Remember optogenetics, because you’ll hear a lot about it in the near future, at least from us.

Also this shameless thing:

2018

SOURCE

2021:

Tucker Carlson: Is Google Funding “Human Engineering” Scientific Research?

 Fox News
On Date June 23, 2021

TUCKER CARLSON: How many other dangerous, potentially world-altering experiments are going on right now, in this and other counties, funded by the secretive daisy-chain of government health agencies, and powerful NGOs? Experiments you’ve never heard of but that could change your life forever? If they can engineer bat viruses to make them more infectious, and oops, they escaped from a lab, what else are they doing? You’re not supposed to ask of course. You’ve been commanded to “trust the science,” and get back to watching Netflix. Only a Neanderthal asks questions. That’s been the arrangement in science for quite a while now. You pay for it, we do it, it’s all good. But why should that continue? Now that we know liars and moral pygmies — people like Tony Fauci, and the soulless bots at Google HQ — and running global science, maybe it’s worth being slightly more inquisitive about what’s happening in labs around the world. Why not? It could affect us.

For example, take a look at this tape. It’s from an annual conference called the “World Science Festival.” A few years ago, the conference featured a professor of bioethics and philosophy at New York University named Mathew Liao.

Liao is among the most influential bioethicists in the world — a fact that will amaze you. Liao explained that climate change can be solved with something called “human engineering.”

MATTHEW LIAO: My view is that what we need is a really robust ethical framework and within this ethical robust framework I think there’s a way going forward where we can do this ethically. But there’s actually a lot of opportunities for this to solve big world problems, one thing is climate change. Climate change is a really big problem we don’t really know how to solve it but it turns out we can use human engineering to help us address climate change.

Here’s a tip: anyone who uses the phrase “robust ethical framework” wouldn’t know ethics if they got in the shower with them. And you know that for a fact because he uses the phrase “human engineering.”

Human engineering? The name alone should make you pause. People aren’t bridge improvements. You can’t just add rebar, pour a few yards of concrete, and improve the human condition, much less the human soul. People are living beings. They’re alive. They can’t be engineered. Liao the eminent bioethicist seems unaware of this. He outlined some of his proposals in a recent paper in the Journal of “Ethics, Policy & Environment.” In that paper, Liao suggests a solution to the problem, the pressing problem, of people eating hamburgers. People like hamburgers, it turns out. How can we get people to stop eating hamburgers? Not by convincing them that hamburgers are bad. That was the old way. That’s how democracy worked. You would tell people something, if they believed they did it, if they didn’t believe you, they didn’t. But it turns out that’s too time-consuming. The new model is we just use pharmaceuticals. Your kids are getting uppity? Dope them out, and they’ll obey. Liao proposes a nationwide system like that, a pill that would make people nauseous at the sight of red meat. Given that climate change is an “existential threat,” that’s limiting our time on earth to 20 years, or 12 years, or 6 months, or pick your exaggeration, it’s hard to imagine a pill like that would soon become mandatory. Sound like a dystopian fantasy? It’s not. Liao is deadly serious. He said so at the “World Science Festival.”

MATTHEW LIAO: So here’s a thought, we have this intolerance for example I have milk intolerance, some people on intolerant to fish so possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case where we are intolerant to certain types of meat, certain types of bovine proteins, so that’s something we can do through human engineering, possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.

TUCKER CARLSON: “Human engineering.” Why do we laugh at Alex Jones again? Sincere question.

Again, says the bioethicist, “human engineering” is the answer. But wait a second, you ask. Human engineering? That’s kind of creepy. Didn’t we decide this kind of thing in Europe 80 years ago, and at the time, didn’t we agree we’re not going to do that ever again? True. But bioethicists have short memories apparently. And in any case, climate change is a pressing emergency. We don’t have time to consider the consequences of our response to this existential crisis.

So here’s an idea, said Liao at the World Science Festival: let’s fiddle with the human genome to see if we can make human children smaller than they are now. A race of dwarfs. They’d eat less, and be cheaper to transport. And that would reduce greenhouse gasses.

MATTHEW LIAO: So it turns out the larger you are, think of the lifetime of greenhouse gas emissions that are required, the energy that’s required to transport larger people rather than smaller people right. But if we are smaller just by 15cm, I did the math that about mass reduction of 25%, which is huge. And 100 years ago we’re all on average smaller, exactly about 15 cm smaller. So think of the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions if we had smaller children. So that’s something we can do.

Imagine if we had smaller children. Little tiny children. Think of how little they would emit in greenhouse gasses. Think about how easy it would be to pick them up, juggle them around, control them. All we need to do is experiment on human children. And we can solve climate change. That was at a public conference five years ago. Nobody said anything. That’s where we are. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. In fact, it’s less ghoulish than some of the things happening in labs right now.

This is what science looks like when it’s been completely decoupled from wisdom, decency and Christianity. It’s a science fiction novel come to life, except it’s real. In fact, Google might be funding it right now.

Same day Carlson picked on him and he responded with this tweet, guess what else he spent two hours on?
Discussing anti-natalism on YouTube with the Romanell Center for Clinical Ethics, who has three subscribers. Numerically.
As the name suggests, anti-natalism is hardcore eugenics that would make Hitler frown.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

If you enabled this Covidiocracy in any way, I’m sorry for you! Even if you have a long life ahead of you, you’ll never experience peace of soul and happiness again.
And in no way you’re welcome to rule over or dictate to any living soul.

BONUS:

DOWNLOAD PDF

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

If you collapsed the world based on his test results, what are you going to do based on the infomation he presents below?

1. PCR tests are not a good tool for medical diagnose and shouldn’t be used as such
2. AIDS science is a fraud
3. Climatology is a “Joke”

HIS EULOGY IN SPANISH TOP NEWSPAPER EL PAIS

Kary Mullis grew up throwing frogs to the sky with homemade rockets, he studied chemistry, left science for a couple of years to work in a bakery, earned a doctorate at the University of California at Berkeley in the heat of psychedelic drug fever and eventually invented, while driving his car, a technique that It marked a before and after in biology: the polymerase chain reaction, a kind of molecular photocopying that allows you to copy a small segment of DNA millions of times. Its revolutionary discovery allowed us to read the human genome, diagnose genetic disorders, identify corpses and hunt serial killers for their DNA. Mullis, born in 1944 in Lenoir (USA), eventually won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993. He died on August 7 from pneumonia in the Californian city of Newport Beach, according to has explained his widowNancy Cosgrove, to the newspaper The Washington Post.

The same American newspaper said in 1998 that Mullis was “possibly the strangest person who has never won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry ”. In 1994, just one year after winning the prize, the researcher visited Spain to give the closing talk of the congress of the European Society for Clinical Research, in Toledo, but refused to talk about his great discovery. Instead, he decided to disseminate his theory that AIDS is not caused by a virus, but arises from exposure to many other pathogens.Mullis told in his autobiography that one night he spoke in a forest with “a bright raccoon”, perhaps “extraterrestrial”

“Mullis started laughing at his audience by commenting that he was going to Seville” where there is some kind of festival in which one gets drunk all night. ” He illustrated the principle of his intervention, cumbersome and confusing, with photographs taken by him of geometric images projected on naked women ”, The country then recounted. Mullis, a genius in his field, showed that a nobel It can be a real songwriter outside your discipline.

The French virologist Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, who discovered HIV in 1983, talked about Mullis in an interview with this newspaper Two years ago. “I have never talked with him. I refuse to talk to people who say idiocy, ”said the researcher. “Scientific data has clearly demonstrated the link between the virus and the disease. These types of statements are dangerous. There are patients who have stopped treatment because of these observations and have fallen ill. You have to stop them, because they are dangerous, ”he added.

Mullis published his autobiography, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field (“Dancing naked in the field of mind”), in 1998. In the book, the chemist tells us that one night in 1985 he met “a bright raccoon” in a forest he owned in Mendocino County, California . “Good afternoon, doctor,” the raccoon greeted him, according to Mullis’s delirious story. “To say they were aliens is a lot to say. But to qualify him as a stranger would be to underestimate him, ”reflected the Nobel winner.The discoverer of HIV, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, described Mullis’ denial speech as “dangerous”

The polymerase chain reaction, known as PCR, changed science forever. Each cell keeps in its tiny nucleus two meters of DNA folded in an inconceivable way. There is written the operating manual of life. Until 1985, scientists needed huge amounts of DNA to be able to analyze genetic information. But, that year, Mullis conceived a new strategy. When the DNA molecule was heated, its two complementary chains – which are usually curled up like a spiral staircase – were separated. By adding the fundamental bricks of DNA, and with the help of an enzyme, each independent chain served as a template to generate the complement and give rise to a perfect photocopy of the original molecule. That way I could have millions of copies in no time. According to Mullis, he had his eureka moment while driving his car from Emeryville, where he worked at the Cetus company, to his farm in Mendocino, which he thought he saw a luminous raccoon and talkative raccoon, perhaps extraterrestrial.

The American chemist, who dedicated himself to surfing after winning the Nobel Prize, always boasted of swimming against the current. In a TED talk in 2002 Mullis recalled that the idea of ​​PCR came to him in 20 minutes and that if he had listened to his molecular biologist friends he would have abandoned it as impossible. “If I had to seek an authority in the matter to ask if the idea would work, I would have said no,” said the chemist. That same attitude towards the scientific consensus led him to deny the existence of the AIDS virus and also that of global warming, an invention of “parasites with degrees in economics or sociology.”

Mullis always knew that he would win the Nobel. In his book Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, the chemist says that his mentor in Berkeley, Joe Neilands, warned him in 1993 that he could take the prize that same year. The old biochemist, 23 years older than Mullis, recommended that he not talk so much with the press to avoid ruining his candidacy. “Neilands told me that probably nothing was wrong because he admitted that I love surfing and women, but he thought that the (Nobel) committee could frown at the fact that I admitted to having taken LSD. Surfing, women and LSD could be too much, ”Mullis recalled in his autobiography. “We both knew I wouldn’t shut up.”
El Pais, 2019 (Spanish)


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

DISCLAIMER: I am sorry if this article insults your intelligence, if that’s the case, this is not aimed at you, it’s aimed to help you in conversations, since society is dominated by people who need these clarifications. Not sure if the final target audience will comprehend this, but I’m doing my best.

I’ve just been outside, the climate… the climate is gone!!!

The first historical instance of “climate denial, by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

There you go, that’s what “climate denial” means, if you’re using English as a code for your communication. And no one has ever done it before me in the history of humanity! I did it only jokingly. There exist no climate deniers since no one has ever denied climate.
If you have ever used this buzzword before, it’s only because you’re intellectually dysfunctional. 50 years ago, you would’ve flunked 2nd grade for not being able to use correctly such basic vocabulary.

If you were thinking of people who deny the climate change, those are called “climate change deniers” in English. It’s a completely different group, since they’re denying different things. That’s if you operate the formal distinction between “climate” and “change”, but climate is change, factually, it’s anything but constant.
However, there has always existed a small and fringe group of people who denied climate change of any sort. Note that in English “fringe” doesn’t mean “wrong”, they’re just not representative for large populations. If you were thinking of them, correct your English accordingly, please!

Lastly, but most importantly, quantitatively and scientifically, there’s the large mass of “climate change official narrative deniers“, people who deny establishment’s official story about the climate.
And that’s the third and most important group you need to be aware of and understand what they do.
But frankly, if you needed these clarifications, you seriously need professional help with your cognitive functions, not my blog posts. I mean it clinically, not mockingly.

Later edit: unsurprisingly, in the first couple of days since publishing, among the few negative comments this article got on social media, the most frequent theme is:
“I don’t get it, therefore you’re a stupid troll!”.
QED.

There is a scientist character in ‘The Walking Dead”, obsessed with turning zombies back, he wouldn’t ever give up, despite a long history of constant failures. Can we turn a functional illiterate and make him get it?
Help us find out, here’s a fun challenge:
Make the least wordy and the most visual version of my meme below, something a goldfish can understand. Then let’s each compare goldfish with gretards and the rest of menagerie that survives at the bottom of the human intelligence pit, based on their direct feedback. My money is on goldfish.

Can you make this better and reach a functional illiterate’s mind?

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu Costinescu

Unless governments cede some of their sovereignty to a new world body, a global carbon trading scheme cannot be enforced and regulated.”

Rothschild & Co., 2008

Big Oil is huge! But it’s still just a segment of the energy market, and whoever controls energy, controls the human species.
Foreseeable, technology is bound to make oil obsolete sooner or later, it was already one of the least efficient combustibles available when the Rockefellers turned it into a standard. So, as moguls always do, instead of letting a demise take them by surprise, they organize a “controlled demolition show”, and they sell tickets (taxation) to the poor to make some extra-profit.
The Rockefellers, the most notorious rock-stars on this stage, are known as Big Oil moguls, but they are actually way bigger than that. They’ve been always acting like they aspire to be planetary moguls, through the control of energy, food, health and media. The old decrepit Big Oil is actually just holding them back now and they’ve been wanting to end it for quite a while. Exxon, Russia and the rest of the oil/gas-reliant forces on the planet are just annoyances for the Rockefellers and friends. They’ve already ensured themselves a leading position in the next level of the game and have been eager to get there for a while. They’re already selling solutions to the problem they created, instead of letting others steal that market from them. Problem – Reaction – Solution, right?
As mega-financiers, the Rothschilds profit from any controlled demolition or construction, as long as they’re on the controls too.
And with mega-vultures like these, always comes a menagerie of predators and corpse-eaters.
Projected on the TV screens, this story translates as a “climate emergency”.
Below you have a little collection of evidences that prove climate alarmism has always been an elite-sponsored movement , despite the popular belief.

Billionaires are the most invested people in climate alarmism on the planet. Here’s some of the evidence:

THE ROCKEFELLERS HAVE PLEDGED BILLIONS IN THE POST-OIL ENERGY MARKET

The Ecologist, 27th September 2014:
” The movement to divest from fossil fuels is gaining strength, writes Ruth Lumley, with $50 billion of institutional investment behind it. This week’s news that almost $1 billion of Rockefeller money is moving from fossil fuels to clean energy shows that the world is changing faster than most ever imagined.

The latest fund to announce its divestment from fossil fuels is none other then the heir to the Rockefeller fortune, built on oil and coal.

Coinciding with today’s UN Climate Change Summit in New York, the Rockefeller Brother’s Fund said that not only would it pull vast sums of money out of fossil fuels, but that it would funnel the money into clean energy.

This latest announcement is further evidence that the divestment movement is unstoppably gaining traction and snowballing, fast.

Institutions across the globe have begun to pledge to divest from fossil fuels in support of the climate change campaign. This list includes the British Medical Association and the Church of Sweden.

The combined asset size of the 837 institutions and individuals committing to divest amounts to more than $50 billion, campaign group 350.org has calculated. 

$50 billion moving out of fossil fuels

The move towards rapid divestment form individuals and institutions has been a result of support for the climate change movement.

The demand for climate change action was evident on Sunday when an estimated 40,000 people took to the streets of London for the Peoples Climate March, which saw over 2,000 protests take place around the world in a bid to make world leaders take solid action towards a stopping climate change.

The movement also took New York by storm with an estimated 400,000 marchers, as well as Rio, Jakarta, Brisbane and hundreds of cities around the world.

In New York, many of the 50,000 students, faith groups, state contingents, and groups carrying banners representing cities or towns, also wore orange squares representing fossil fuel divestment.

Records show that 181 institutions and local governments and 656 individuals representing over $50 billion dollars have pledged to divest to-date.

That number includes the $860 million which will be redirected from fossil fuels by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The report indicates that divestment commitments have doubled in the eight months since January 2014.”

As I said earlier, The Rockefellers have been long selling solutions to the problem they’ve created. Fast forward from 2014 to present time and go on their website to watch Katherine Hamilton – Chair of 38 North Solutions, a boutique consulting firm that provides a suite of business strategy, public policy, and communications services to innovative businesses and organizations. She currently serves as Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum’s Future of Energy Global Future Council and was formerly the President of GRID Alternatives Mid-Atlantic. In a nice video, she will tell you all about how “ we can transition to a clean energy economy through the advancement of technology and leadership to end dependence on fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas.
Aren’t you already starting to love the Rockefellers?

Source
Source

Under the guise of fighting alleged “man-made global-warming,” the Rockefeller family and its billions have been bankrolling everything from “climate” journalism (propaganda) efforts, politicians, and “academia” to politically motivated “investigations” of energy companies and non-profit organizations by government officials. Billionaire extremist George Soros also helped fund the efforts, according to the report by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) entitled The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert “Climate Change” Plan.

“The billionaires’ goal, according to the report, was to crush the oil and gas industry, using government power as the weapon of choice, to ultimately gain greater control over the energy sector once again. “Not surprisingly, the Rockefellers are heavily invested in renewable energy,” the report explains, offering examples. But Rockefellers are no strangers to underhanded machinations to gain market share. Using extremely shady tactics, the report also details how John D. Rockefeller Sr., the founding patriarch of the Rockefeller dynasty, gained a virtual monopoly over the U.S. energy industry by the 1880s — at least until the feds broke it up into smaller companies.” noted The New American in January 2107


“EVEN THE ROTHSCHILDS ARE WEATHER OBSESSED”


Can you believe it?! 🙂

Evelyn de Rothschild and Lynn Forester de Rothschild said they are buying a majority stake in weather-data service Weather Central L.P., marking a significant expansion of the Rothschilds’ investments into media and information.

The couple’s private-investment company, E.L. Rothschild LLC, is slated to acquire 70% of Weather Central, which provides weather forecasting services and graphics to local television stations and TV programs such as ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Ms. Forester de Rothschild, a former telecommunications executive and a prominent Democratic fund raiser, is CEO of E.L. Rothschild. Evelyn, her husband, is chairman of the investment company and was chairman of the NM Rothschild & Sons investment bank until 2007, when he cashed out his investment. His cousin, Baron David de Rothschild, now runs the investment bank.

E.L. Rothschild also holds the couple’s investments in the U.K.’s Economist Group and agricultural company FieldFresh Foods, majority owned by India’s Bharti Enterprises.

“We have been looking for an investment to partner on an operating basis — as we did with our investment in agriculture in India and with the Economist — since my husband sold his position in NM Rothschild,” Ms. Forester de Rothschild said in an interview.

Wall Street Journal, Jan 31, 2011

This is what happened right after the acquisition.

Before Greta Thunberg, there was David de Rothschild

David de Rothschild was a romantic climate warrior before it was cool, basically he’s the proto-climate-hipster. Here he is, in 2009, at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen, whining they can’t fix the weather without a global government and that’s hard to get.

I wonder if David got the Maxwell ocean passport…



One year earlier, “Simon Linnett, Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, has called for a new international body, the World Environment Agency, to regulate carbon trading. In a recently published paper, Trading Emissions, for the Social Market Foundation, Mr Linnett argues that the International problem of climate change demands an international solution. Unless governments cede some of their sovereignty to a new world body, he says, a global carbon trading scheme cannot be enforced and regulated.”The Telegraph, 2008
We can see what you’re doing there!

2008 – 10 = 1998

It all goes back to 1987, when the Rothschilds, through their proxy Maurice Strong, ignited the theory that CO2 is driving global warming. The subtext was that it will cost some money to solve the problem, but they can lend them to any government in need. Which they did, through a host of financial bodies and instruments they control: IMF, World Bank, World Conservation Bank which later became Global Environment Facility, Edmond de Rothschild Private Equity and many more.
And the world has never been the same since.

This is a real book 🙂

OF COURSE SOROS IS OVER HIS HEAD INTO SPONSORING CLIMATE WARRIORS…


Billionaire George Soros said on Saturday that he would invest $1 billion in clean energy technology as part of an effort to combat climate change.

The Hungarian-born U.S. investor also announced he would form and fund a new climate policy initiative with $10 million a year for 10 years.

“Global warming is a political problem,” Soros told a meeting of editors in the Danish capital where governments are scheduled to meet in December to try to hammer out a new global climate agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

“The science is clear, what is less clear is whether world leaders will demonstrate the political will necessary to solve the problem,” he said, according to a brief email statement.

Reuters, 2009

Source



In 2016, DC Leaks has released documents showing that Al Gore pulled in $30 million over three years from the Open Society Foundation: “This budget item captures George Soros’s commitment of $10 million per year for three years to Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, which conducts public education on the climate issue in pursuit of creating political space for aggressive U.S. action in line with what scientists say is necessary to put our nation on a path to reducing its outsize carbon dioxide emissions.”

ONE FOUNDATION AKA THE HOLY CLIMATE ALLIANCE: GATES, SOROS, BONO, GRETA. BARE THIEVES.

According to their own website:
“ONE originated in conversations between Bill Gates and Bono in the early 2000s about the need to better inform Americans about extreme poverty around the world. Together with Melinda Gates, Bobby Shriver, George Soros, Ed Scott, Bob Geldof, and Jamie Drummond, they created an anti-poverty advocacy organization called DATA that focused on deploying celebrities and other influential individuals to urge world leaders to take action on specific development issues. Within a few years, DATA had joined with several other organizations to form ONE, with major backing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The goal was to create a political constituency for development priorities—particularly the UN Millennium Development Goals, which in 2000 set specific global targets to address disease, poverty, and other pressing development issues. “
They are baby-sitting Greta Thunberg too, and the rest is history:

An anonymous source claims to have extracted lots of documents from Extinction Rebellion’s computer database and has put them up online.

The documents, if genuine, seem to have been exposed through carelessness on the part of Extinction Rebellion, not a computer hack. Anyway, Paul Homewood has been filleting some of the best bits and here is what he has found.

Source



I’ve only scratched the surface in this article, this is just a trailer of a saga, the rabbit hole looks more like an old termite colony. I will try to come back with more in depth information and research on the topic, but the main point is beyond evidenced here already, I think:
Environmentalism is super-rich men’s business and we’re just pawns in it.

I leave you with a few more resources to explore:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu Costinescu

Actual headline, not a frame from “Idiocracy”

Most (if not all) ground-breaking discoveries came from people who defied consensus, otherwise you would still spray DDT on kids and have nurses selling you cigarettes to smoke in hospital rooms. Consensus is the ground in “ground-breaking”.
Scientific consensus is a logical fallacy that you need to avoid in order to achieve science.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Michael Crichton.

The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

The Guardian

Is your info on issues like “global warming” coming from people who can believe 99% consensus is possible among scientists (or any large groups of people), and that’s a good thing for science?
Are all arguments for global warming as imbecile as consensus = truth?
As fake as 99% consensus? That would make Stalin proud…
You know the only other “thing” on the planet that gets 99% consensus? Kim Jong Un.
As far as I dug, these have been the only two methods for reaching 99% consensus in all human experience:
1. Tyrannically silencing anyone who disagrees.
2. Polling an insignificantly small group that you control.

What is the difference between how the global warming “consensus” is obtained and how Kim obtains his?
You can’t even poll 100% of scientists, you can’t merely determine accurately who are all the people who deserve to be polled, are you kidding yourself?!!
The only claim that has obtained 99% consensus in science so far appears to be “we have to please our financiers!”. Do you know who finances this stuff?

Besides, bandwagoning and appealing to authority are not arguments, they are basic logical fallacies.
If you can’t spot obvious traps like these, you have no hope or chance to avoid being duped by people who have a long experience in trapping the ignoramus.


Functional literates be like:

“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. (…)
Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” –
Michael Crichton

“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.” – Stephen Hawking

“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” – Richard Feynman

Braindead NPCs be like: “Meh, check these presstitutes out!”




If you enjoy any of my work, remember that most of what I do is made freely available to the general public and I rely on your support for keeping it that way, so buy me a coffee if you feel like it, thank you!

! My articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them