No one could possibly claim that those are “issues” that should be addressed in any meaningful way in the scientific community unless they come from some of the world’s leading geneticists and pharmaceutical engineers, and the only place they can come from those authorities is one that has been heavily censored and censored.
I might add that the vast majority of those who study science today come from the public and private sectors. And, of course, much is dictated by politics, and that is precisely why the two-sided, scientific/political, consensus is not held together.
I will have to finish the section from one point of view: the scientific community has an obligation to study the environment. Environmental science, as in that area, is a very small sphere in general. We know very little, even less than in physics, about the environment, and that only because of a small number of people who know the correct questions to ask for any kind of scientific study. As a consequence, the “right” questions that should be asked are very hard to find. Science is all about asking questions. We need to ask them. And, if we do not ask (often simply because they do not show up in the field), we do not understand.
And this is why what I say can come across as a kind of self-righteous moralistic rant. It is not. I am not advocating any kind of moralistic rant. I am simply advocating the study of the environmental sciences.
Now, I suppose it is not possible for me to go into any more detail here. The general point to be made, which I briefly touched upon in the last section, is that we are moving inexorably towards a kind of ecological genocide. And I am not going to try to make the case for this in the manner that many people have done. I will just give you a couple of examples, both with scientific plausibility.
One is that most of us live in a climate dominated by big chemical industrial polluters. This is, in general, the reason that those big polluters have so much political power. And, it is also one of the reasons why big chemical manufacturing companies are so good at propagandizing about how pollution causes global warming, because it gives them a way to get you to pay attention to how little you care about your own family’s health.
Now, don’t buy into this. But it is important. You cannot simply take a poll to determine if climate change is happening at all. That is the wrong question to ask because the right question is the one I just gave about the environmental sciences. It is a legitimate question and scientists are doing some very important science about it, but it asks questions that are not relevant to the climate as it is now. They are asking about how much of this climate change will be due to environmental changes in our own home, and then if some of this change is due to natural variations, or to a combination of them. So, yes, I can make the case in the latter case, but since it is not directly relevant to the climate I would have preferred to focus on the former. If any other people asked me about whether the weather was getting warmer or whether there was more of a threat of an apocalyptic winter from hurricanes that would come over the Atlantic Ocean, I could answer them that they were wrong, that the weather was better, in terms of both strength and frequency, than a few weeks of a winter. And, once they were aware of that their position as a citizen was clearly weakened by the fact that they had not been given all of the facts about the weather, and the fact that they were not given them in a context in which they could properly evaluate them. Now, I know there are some good reasons why people wouldn’t want to hear this sort of information. If it were only from bad sources like Al Gore or the likes, it might have been a lot harder to resist. But it is not. So, in the case of the climate, I would not even try to answer the question. (Perhaps we could also address this in response to the climate-denying groupthink, but I have found that it is often very difficult to get the data in the form acceptable to this kind of group. It almost always uses “pollution” as an excuse to ignore everything else.)
So, we are moving inexorably towards a massive and catastrophic ecological genocide that takes us into a world that does not exist today or ever will. And, I am not a great believer in “intelligent design.” I am inclined to believe that it cannot be any more than a coincidence, a natural consequence, of some random factors. This is my opinion. In the final weeks of my life,