Socrates, Climate Change and the Robotic Mind
What would Socrates ask our Climate Scientists about Global Warming?
If Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher, were alive today what would he be asking the climate scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? Our history books tell us that Socrates was put to death not because he was accusing anyone of corruption. Rather he was forced to drink the poison hemlock by his fellow legislators because he would not stop asking questions. Apparently if they attempted to answer his questions it would show the wrongness in their ideas. It seemed a lot easier to just kill him than to face the contradictions in their own behaviour.
With this in mind these may be very dangerous times for anyone who is asking questions about what is really happening with our global climate. For example, it seems like an outrage to question the pronouncements made by the self-appointed IPCC, even though the IPCC has close connections with global corporate interests.
In our modern age are we afraid to look for facts and evidence regarding what is really happening to our global climate because we fear we may also face the hemlock if we do not agree with the prevailing theory’s? To be fair few of us are putting our lives on the line if we point out the inconsistencies in the official climate change story but we do face ridicule from the gatekeepers of the” truth” and the chance that our status in our professional lives will be greatly reduced. Is this fear of losing respect causing us to ignore the inconvenient truth? Are we acting unconsciously by mentally shutting down and not asking pressing questions, in effect acting in a robotic manner, by just going along with the world views of the global corporate media? If so, will it ever be possible for the citizens of this planet to demand scientifically established facts by independent researchers regarding the potential changes in our global environment?
The world is in chaos; seemingly. Riots are occurring in Iran, Hong Kong, Chile and Venezuela to name a few. We had the Arab Spring and the Occupy movements rise up and then fizzle out. There is the yellow vest movement in France and the oddly named Extinction Rebellion movement originating in England and now spreading worldwide. We have a reality TV show staring Donald Trump that we are glued to on a daily basis. And now the issue of the Coronavirus. Is this an accidental release of a virus from a wild animal in a market in Wuhan, China as reported by mainstream media, or is this some type of biological warfare? Given its history of distorting the truth how is it possible we could ever find the truth from the corporate media?
Would Socrates ask, is this global media circus possibly just a part of a public distraction strategy by the owners of the corporate media to keep us from thinking about possibly even more important matters such as the loss fundamental freedoms and democratic processes around the globe? Should we ask, are these corporations not the ones that have caused this global instability in the first place? As well, why should we give up our democratic rights to the very people who have reaped huge profits and power while destroying the natural environment of this beautiful planet?
No doubt things have to change if we are going to save what is left of our planet and keep what is left of our civilization going. We have to end the attack on our ecosystems from electromagnetic radiation, chemically poisoned food, microplastic in all organisms, extinctions and drastic declines in all species, global biological warfare and so on. No matter what your opinion is on what is causing our weather to change I think we can all agree that we have to protect this planet from ongoing harm. The most important question is, who is going to call the shots for these changes, the citizens of this planet or the rich and the powerful through their control of our political, economic and monetary systems?
It seems the most dangerous thing a person can do these days is to think for themselves, and to ask questions that challenge the corporate agenda. Corporate media including our beloved Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) along with hundreds of thousands of spin doctors from public relations firms, think tanks, including economists and so on, are telling us that the planet will burn up soon if we do not “accept the truth” about global warming.
But what is truly happening to our global environment? Who does the research? Who shapes the narrative and creates the terms of reference? Who decides the real facts of the matter? Who decides what sort of changes are needed? What processes are a legitimate expression of the will of the people of this planet? According to the global corporate media it seems the only answer is the IPCC.
But should we be writing the IPCC a blank check? Should it concern us that climate scientists are almost all funded by corporations? An oft quoted phrase is that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity is creating the greenhouse gases that result in global heating. Why is it that a person labelled a climate change denier if they ask questions about how this consensus came about or if there is really a consensus at all?
An example of corporate control includes a related issue, the public relations campaign to promote the world wide roll out of the 5th generation of wireless technology. 5G is a new and potentially devastating wireless technology that threatens not only our human right for privacy, but also the health of all living species on the planet. You might ask what does 5G have to do with the climate change issue? What if it can be shown that the influential people promoting groups to fight climate change like Extinction Rebellion are also intimately connected in the business of 5G?
It is possible that planetary heating is mainly due to human activity. It is possible that CO2 is the main driver of green house gases that is creating global heating. However, is it not also possible that many of these scientists could be biased to a point that their projections of the effects of global warming may be greater than what the facts support?
The ability of humans to deliberately alter the weather has to be considered when discussing climate change. There is a possibility that we are all being deceived into believing that the global climate is changing by people who are physically altering our weather.
It seems this is an idea that just may be too strange to fit into the paradigm we have created in our minds of what our world is about. Is our fear of this possibility not letting us consider it?
An example of corporate medalling in scientific research is the quality of the research coming from the electrical industry regarding the safety of the new global 5 G network. Dr Henry Lai, a researcher who has examined the effects of radio frequency radiation (RFR) on human health found that about 70% of studies funded by Industry showed no health effects from everyday exposures. Astonishingly Dr Lai also found almost the exact opposite, that about 70% of independent non corporate funded research showed that exposure to everyday levels of RFR caused harm.
It could be said that Dr. Lai’s findings indicate that there is bias in scientific research on the health effects of EMR. We all agree, that it is not scientific to ignore bias. Most of the research on the health effects of RFR is funded by industry. With that in mind, why should the public trust climate scientists any more than we trust electrical industry scientists?
It has been said that Socrates rejected any attempts to pass off another person’s ideas or the beliefs of the majority as truth. The self declared leaders of the fight to protect our planet from overheating claim that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. The problem is there is no one single scientific study that proves that CO2 is the main driver of climate change.
Just because the corporate media claim that there is a consensus amongst climate scientists that CO2 is the main driver that causes climate change does not make it a fact. Scientific facts are created when phenomena created under strictly controlled conditions have been replicated by others using the same controlled environment and methods. This has not been done to prove that CO2 is the main driver of planetary heating. Why should we keep accepting the truth as exposed by the IPCC in the same manner that the public has accepted the unproven pronouncements of the electrical industry scientists?
Let us not forget however that we do not need absolute proof that C02 is the main driver of climate change to justify taking action to reduce the production of C02. If we dramatically reduce our use of oil and gas and coal, we will benefit in a thousand ways by reducing environmental pollution other than reducing planetary heating. We are in so much trouble that doing anything to protect our natural environment is good.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons on the short term is acceptable. But in the long run we have to address some pressing issues. What are the real forces that are destroying our planet and who is controlling these forces? How are we going to create trustworthy sources of information to help direct us? Moreover, we should be asking how much is the corporate media and our corporate controlled universities affecting our opinions? We may have to dig a little deeper into our collective consciousness to begin to answer that. Or would it just be easier as in Socrates case, to shoot the messenger?
Why is it that we crave certainty? Why do we fanatically seek to be absolutely right which makes others absolutely wrong? Why are we so easily satisfied that we know the truth even though our opinions could be based upon biased information? Does our lack of understanding of the issues not create the ability of the owners of the corporate media to steer events in ways that will have the best results for them?
Facts are created by asking questions. Facts are often incongruent with our world view. When our worldview is challenged our first emotion is fear. It seems the elephant in the room is that we are not dealing with the fear of climate catastrophe which causes the mental blind spots we all have when we are confronted with unsettling issues. Most importantly what happens when a majority of us give into this fear and share a view that is not based upon facts and evidence? Will we all think and act robotically to support an illusion that will perpetuate this crisis or will we keep our minds open to new information by asking unsettling questions that when answered truthfully will steer us towards better understanding of our world and into a brighter future.
Walt McGinnis is an EM Radiation tester, master electrician, and seeker of the facts, who lives on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, email@example.com