Eric Brooks | ericbrooks.substack.com

In the past decade I have seen the media rewriting history by declaring that: (a) the fossil fuel industry "knew" of climate change already in the 1970s and yet those bad people kept the secret from us and that (b) climate scientists have said all along along that carbon dioxide emissions will cause global warming This rewriting of history is bad because it prevents us from correctly identifying our mistake. First, note that those two narratives (a) and (b) don't agree with each other. If climate scientists knew a century ago what carbon dioxide emissions would do, how come that the fossil fuel industry could keep that secret from us? Answer: Everyone who was paying attention knew the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but there was no evidence to back up the idea that fossil fuel emissions were causing temperature changes. I repeat: THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE. NO ONE HAD ANY EVIDENCE. Neither the scientists in academia nor those in the fossil fuel industry. No one could have known in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s that the models were correct. If you think they could have "known" just from model projections -- at which point did we stop asking for evidence to back up models? Second thing to notice is that the fact that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere was so widely known that I learned of it in middle school in the 1980s. So much about it being a big secret or something. The reality is much more complicated: Scientists -- both in academia and in the fossil fuel industry -- developed a set of increasingly good models for the climate. However, few scientists had confidence in these models -- that goes both for those in the industry as well as in academia. As a physicist I would say of course the models were correct because it's just physics and physics trumps. But fact is that most scientists back then didn't have high confidence in their own models. You don't need to take my word for this, you can just look at the published literature. Or maybe you are old enough to remember. This is why there was for decades so much talk about natural variability and so on. This is why the IPCC in its first report did very carefully state that "The observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability". This is why Michael Mann in his book explains why his PhD adviser Barry Salzman "was unconvinced in the early 1990s that we could establish the human impact on our climate" and that "this was a tenable position then". The fossil fuel industry did its best to pretend the evidence took longer to come in than it actually did. Around the mid 1990s they started spreading the idea of "unsettled science" and so on. But that didn't work well, and they soon switched to claiming that while climate change is real it's actually beneficial. To make a long story short: Blaming the fossil fuel industry for supposedly "knowing" that their product causes climate change and not telling us is nonsense. They knew as much or as little as the scientists, and that knowledge was long in the public record anyway. I am not a fan of the fossil fuel industry but that scientists in the fossil fuel industry reproduced what those in academia said was not the main problem. The problem was that no one listened to the scientists! If you are one of those people who like to blame the supposedly evil fossil fuel industry, you have fallen for a myth that the media has created probably to excuse why they themselves weren't covering climate change as much as they should have. The reason this matters is that by rewriting history we are misattributing the mistake. So please stop repeating this stupid idea that the fossil fuel industry "knew" something that the rest of the world didn't. It's not what happened. Oh, and also stop the idiotic accusation that I am being paid by fossil fuel industry. I have no sympathy for the fossil fuel industry and it's obvious that they tried to obfuscate the science. (If not very successfully.) I am just not willing to accept a false narrative even if that aids a party I dislike.

Exxon had a climate model. Scientists had climate models. Neither had good evidence these models were correct until sometimes in the mid 1990s at the earliest. It's funny how people forget to ask for evidence when that forgetfulness suits their narrative teapaw.org/KennethBarrows3/status…

I agree!

Look at all those grifters, PDF file apologists, and three letter agency opps. Sad to see them all surrounding Julian Assange.

Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore go on epic rant about Trump, Robert De Niro, Obama, Biden, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Russiagate, Wikileaks, American propaganda, and independent news @jimmy_dore: "I never hated Trump. I hated the system that got us Trump. Barack Obama bailed out the banks and kicked 5.1 million families out of their homes and then gave us a right-wing health care plan that was a giveaway to Big Pharma and insurance companies." @joerogan: "Look what's happening in Ukraine, and we just signed for another ten years of war, worth what? $800 billion?" @jimmy_dore: "It's a money funneling operation. That's what Afghanistan was. The wars aren't meant to be won. They are meant to be ongoing. They had a peace agreement almost immediately after Russia invaded. Ukraine agreed. Zelensky agreed. They flew out Boris Johnson to say, 'You can't do this, or we're going to kill you.' So this war is ongoing, and they have to rip people off corners and put them in vans to fight. The average age of the Ukrainian military is over 40 years old." @joerogan: "Have you seen the videos of Ukrainian guys getting kidnapped? They just grab guys with their families. People are screaming, and they throw them in a van. You're going to go fight in a war." @jimmy_dore: "Nobody knows how this war started. You've had @ComicDaveSmith on. He explained it. Nobody knows about the Maidan Coup that the U.S. got in bed with right-wing Nazis in Ukraine to overthrow a democratically elected government. Then they started bombing the people in Eastern Ukraine called the Donbass, and they wouldn't stop. They had two peace agreements called the Minsk Accords. Guess who violated that? Ukraine. And, of course, it was the expansion of NATO to Russia's border, which everybody from Kissinger to Chomsky and everybody in between said, 'That's a mistake. Don't do that.' And, of course, that's what they did." @jimmy_dore: "Look what the United States did to Iraq. Look what we did to Libya. The most successful country in Africa. The guy created the world's eighth wonder to deliver water and turn deserts into farmland. Everybody had a house, education, and health care. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton turned that into a failed state run by terrorists with open slave markets. They'll never pay a price." @joerogan: "Yeah, it's a conundrum for sure. But don't you think that more people are aware that it's bullshit than ever before? I think shows like yours and these independent online shows that aren't beholden to a corporation can actually connect the dots with knowledgeable people. It's just a different world now."

This was a phenomenal podcast with the legends @joerogan and @jimmy_dore

Dear @jack Some people say you have changed and should be welcomed to #Bitcoin. Personally I don’t want you, your companies or your woke executives anywhere near Bitcoin development. You blocked Americans from viewing true information. You engaged in the largest private sector censorship operation in human history. There may not be a single living person more responsible for sweeping censoring and blocking of the truth than you. You even blocked the President of the United States and had Biden’s FBI in your offices. You blocked the 100+ year old New York Post for publishing a story about Hunter Biden that was true. Have you ever explained these actions or apologized? Have you changed? Do you still support Biden, do you have rabid TDS? Do you support Gensler and Warren? You gave $10 million to communist Ibham X. Kendi. Do you still agree with his ideology? What is your philosophy on human rights and freedom? Your company executives are extreme progressives. How can they be trusted? Why should Bitcoiners welcome development contributions from Block when the company and its leadership have values that are completely antithetical to the Bitcoin values of freedom and decentralization? All holders are welcome. Developers and funders should show merit and philosophical alignment first. You have a LOT of explaining to do.

In my honest opinion, crypto is ruining the young generation. My friend’s 22-year old son made over $300k with crypto in 2021 and quit his day job. He later lost it on some shady investments. Now he spends 99% of his time locked in his room looking for his next “lucky shot” with crypto. No amount of intervention has worked. My friend is afraid that he’s lost his son to gambling. What do you think of this?

Obviously Republicans would attack Harris viciously if she were the nominee and obviously she has her flaws, but just look at how much better it is to have someone who can deliver the basic hits on Trump in a punchy and lively way.