The mistakes made during Covid will undoubtedly be repeated unless we recognise the true nature of science which is observation, discovery and debate. Science is not government policy kept alive by censorship on all levels including social media.
Science is not advanced by consensus but by scientists thinking outside the box and making breakthroughs which are roundly debated before arriving at a generally accepted consensus. Science is only as robust as our processes permit and during Covid they were as weak as Presbyterian tea.
The problem we had with Covid is the same problem we have with climate change and gender ideology: the intrusion of politics and financial greed into science and scientific processes.
Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, explains why he parted company with Greenpeace:
Science is not advanced by consensus but by scientists thinking outside the box and making breakthroughs which are roundly debated before arriving at a generally accepted consensus. Science is only as robust as our processes permit and during Covid they were as weak as Presbyterian tea.
The problem we had with Covid is the same problem we have with climate change and gender ideology: the intrusion of politics and financial greed into science and scientific processes.
Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, explains why he parted company with Greenpeace:
It was really a shame when Greenpeace went bad, largely because it was hijacked by the political left because they saw the money and the political power created.
Moore also said:
If you make policy based on bad science you get bad policy, you can even get bad policy based on good science.
And on the climate change Greenpeace fixates on today:
There is no hard evidence to show that carbon dioxide is causing anything to happen to the temperature of the earth, there is nothing, it is totally theoretical.
Covid was theoretical too, until it became obvious that the facts were far removed from the theory in just about every area.
Pharmaceutical companies benefitted hugely financially from the fast tracked and poorly tested vaccines; and politicians, like Jacinda Ardern who were temporarily elevated to a cult like saviour status by hijacking the science for financial and political gain, were dumped back on earth by the thump of reality.
Science took a backseat during Covid and takes a back seat on climate change and gender diversity today because money and political power are extremely persuasive.
If we learned one thing from Covid it is that we can’t trust the politicians or their minions: the mainstream media, and government departments such as The Disinformation Project, set up to dictate the public narrative.
Election year brings out the worst in politicians, fronting up with policies promising to reduce the crippling cost of living, reduce crime, improve access to better medical care, save children from illiteracy and halt the tsunami of race-based government policy, to name a few.
The current government made so many unfulfilled promises that it’s hard to keep count, but it’s pretty pointless to expect a different outcome from a political party trotting out the same wobbly science about reducing CO2 levels but using a different vehicle to achieve it.
Speaking at the Beehive in Wellington, Luxon made it clear lowering emissions was a major priority for his party and took a swing at the Labour Government’s record.
Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government took away our right to question or speak up about stuff we don’t agree with. Unless we take back our voice at this year’s election we will have one autocratic government simply replaced by another.
Suze sees herself as a New Zealander whose heritage shaped but does not define, and believes unless we protect our rights and freedoms they will be taken off us by a few powerful people. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
It is disturbing how discerning many have become. Whereas cynicism is unhealthy skepticism is not.
With Covid I went with the narrative for a while because my great grandmother had died of the 1918 Spanish flu and bird flu and swine flu seemed to be real. I have always had a dislike of Big Pharma and had some fierce conflicts with the medical establisbment playing at being God.
Last century at Uni. we were taught the principles of the scientific method and after three years of studying geology concluded evolution was deeply flawed in several areas. Hence science could be manipulated to support a world view.
It has come as a shock to me however that a government could be so evil when I thought the churches prayed for them to be blessed when it is plainly now devilish.
Perhaps it is all a divine plan to redirect our trust and moral authority elsewhere.
I used to feel secure our liberal democracy couldn't us fail but it clearly has. Completely.
>after three years of studying geology concluded evolution was deeply flawed
Um, so you studied rocks and decided that natural selection and mutation as per neo-Darwinian biological evolution were 'deeply flawed'. I'm fascinated. Which university were you at - some American fundamentalist 'bible college'?
>Perhaps it is all a divine plan to redirect our trust and moral authority elsewhere.
Yeah, hopefully well away from the 'divine', if by that you mean a Bronze Age tribal desert spook........
I attended Otago University , Barend , where Michael Denton author of 'Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis', was on the staff and is a well known medical geneticist. He is an agnostic from England.
The above mentioned book is well worth reading for those with intellectual curiosity and an open mind.
I will quote from this book,p26,'Admittedly there are still many prominent figures such as Coyne, Ruse, Dennett, and Dawkins who strictly adhere to a pan-adaptational framework and to the notion of all macroevolutionary phenomena..... that can be generally accounted for by the same mechanism,cumulative selection, that works at the microevolutionary level. But despite these dyed -in-the -wool Darwinists, there is now (2016) a growing chorus of dissent within mainstream evolutionary biology! A significant number of researchers, particularly in the new field of evo-devo, now argue that macroevolution requires an expanatory framework different from that of microevolution ......'
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.