New Video : How Did We Survive The 1970s?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to New Video : How Did We Survive The 1970s?

  1. NoOil4Pacifists says:

    Tony,

    I have no idea why you blocked me on Twitter (given I agree with almost everything you write) but how about unblocking?

    @nooil4pacifists

  2. arn says:

    Considering how many catastrophies we obviously have survived
    in the last decades without even noticing((though evil consporacy theorists claim that none of them ever happened nor will happen as they only exist inside the heads of scientists who use them to ask for money&fame))
    even the worst case global warming scenario *10 will be taken with ease.

    ((or maybe we are just jealous that we can not hear those strange voices inside
    the heads of scientists that keep telling them:”You’ll all gonna die(or even worse:will be forced to get a regular job) until you make them pay billions so that you can keep your job”))

  3. Anon says:

    If anyone has not read it yet, I recommend the Richard S. Lindzen (MIT) paper, in which he discusses the discovery that FEAR was one of the best methods of obtaining and sustaining government funding:

    It is my impression that by the end of the 60’s scientists themselves came to feel that the real basis for support was not gratitude (and the associated trust that support would bring further benefit) but fear: fear of the Soviet Union, fear of cancer, etc. Many will conclude that this was merely an awakening of a naive scientific community to reality, and they may well be right. However, between the perceptions of gratitude and fear as the basis for support lies a world of difference in incentive structure. If one thinks the basis is gratitude, then one obviously will respond by contributions that will elicit more gratitude. The perpetuation of fear, on the other hand, militates against solving problems. This change in perception proceeded largely without comment. However, the end of the cold war, by eliminating a large part of the fear-base forced a reassessment of the situation. Most thinking has been devoted to the emphasis of other sources of fear: competitiveness, health, resource depletion and the environment.

    This new paradigm for science and its dependence on fear based support may not constitute corruption per se, but it does serve to make the system particularly vulnerable to corruption.

    Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
    Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.
    Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate MIT, Cambridge MA 02139, USA.

    http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Lindzen12-March-ClimateScienceNOTansweringQ.pdf

    • arn says:

      Well-and which movement started by the end of the 60ies?
      The movement that follows the very same ideology as “modern” science
      and which is now hiding under a new name= progressive.

      What an amazing coiincidence that both states of corruption and undermining started at the same time :)

      btw-
      fear was always known as best factor to ‘influence” people:
      Be it fear to rot in hell forever if you do not confirm to common believes,
      fear of being called names or an outcast (nazi,islamophob etc etc)
      or fear caused by terrorising even the own people so that the elites can achieve their goals(eg. gladio)

      Fear is the ultimate alltime bestseller
      and the day science started to use fear it became religion&politics
      and stopped being science.

      • arn says:

        the other “movement” was the hippie movement

      • Roberv says:

        Progressives came to power the moment the federal reserve system was enacted.
        The hippie movement was just one of their many tools to gain more power dividing society. And as always it were the immature young falling victim to this cancer. The young who want to change the world but would not survive in their utopia.

        • arn says:

          To be more precise:
          Progressives came to power the moment the First Bank of England was established in 1694
          as result of Cromwell(the first progressive ever) killing the king.
          The bank was 100% private and the owners unknown though they very likely belong to the same criminal group that controles the federal reserve(minus Rockefellers and JP Morgan as those joined the show later(mid 19th century)

          The results were the same as after the creation of the the Federal Reserve the USA became the same world wide mass murdering machine England became after the creation of the bank of england
          by robbing the population via inflation.

  4. Anon says:

    Tony,

    This was a very thought provoking video. I think this topic (FEAR ASPECT) is a lot deeper than we think. I don’t want to trivialize the topic by posting the link below, except for the fact that people (in the fine and performing arts) will often depict things or portray things / act things out, that are in the collective public subconscious.

    Collective unconscious, term introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung to represent a form of the unconscious (that part of the mind containing memories and impulses of which the individual is not aware) common to mankind as a whole and originating in the inherited structure of the brain.

    Your video in combination with the Lindzen paper, reminded me of the episode from the Happy Days sit-com from 1978 (a representation of the un-articulated collective unconscious). The whole, now articulated Fear Thesis thesis, can be seen below: acted out:

    Happy Days Fearless Malph (Oct.24,1978)
    https://youtu.be/O32tkAn1ReI

    And it adds one more element. Not only does Fear drive the scientific and political fields, but it also is a Boon for the Media. Could you imagine a news program that was about dissecting the actual causes of the 2016 Presidential Election vs one where Putin and Russia hacked our election in terms of ratings and advertising!?

    This really means we need to be very careful about the media we are consuming and absorbing in relation to our own psychological vulnerabilities.

    Excellent video!

    • R. Shearer says:

      You have a good memory, Anon.

      Judges banning reporting of stories can’t be good for the media, especially for instance, after throwing activist “reporters,” such as Tommy Robinson in jail.

      What I want to say is, I’m reasonably confident that Tony’s first amendment right is backed up by the second, and this is a great video.

  5. GW Smith says:

    Great one, Tony. You nailed it on the head – it’s all about funding, i.e. power. Mencken saw this game along with many others who are continually ignored and shouted down. Your platform and brilliant factual evidence keep the ship of truth afloat amid ongoing tidal waves of deceit the left keeps throwing at us. Keep it up!

  6. Ross says:

    Here in Australia we are fortunate to have the illustrious John Cook to show us the way.

    Australia is also currently resurrecting a decades old meme – from the 60’s and 70’s – about the “yellow hordes of Asia” sweeping down to rape your wives and children. This fear tactic was used to justify OUR aggression in SE Asia – supporting declining colonialism on behalf of other countries.

    They actually used those words “yellow hordes of Asia” on TV whilst showing corrupt despots we were supporting militarily summarily executing people in the streets by a bullet to the head and naked children running naked down the road on fire from napalm dropped on their homes as part of our daily news – all presented as if these reflected national pride.

    And we wonder why Asian nations distrust us – except for the ONLY monstrous Asian aggressor of the 20th century, Japan, which is apparently our best friend now and all forgiven – my parents generation of ex military who suffered unspeakable horror at the hands of our new best friend in Asia must be rolling with disgust in their graves.

    The world is truly run by lunatics – the next hobgoblin has already surfaced and I am hearing daily of the horrors of plastic on our media – watch this space. It may replace “climate change”.

  7. James says:

    Good video, but acid rain is/was the real deal. Not modeled, not imaginary, but real and based on observational data. Climate change and acid rain are not in the same league. Please keep it objective.

    • Kent Clizbe says:

      Really? The “real deal?”

      Do tell….please share details of this deal.

      Here’s the actual real deal:

      “Perhaps the best example of the contributions of scientists to a large, complex issue is the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project (NAPAP). This project entailed hundreds of scientists working in small groups over a period of 10 years at a cost of $550 million.

      “Scare Debunked

      “The NAPAP findings were submitted to Congress in 1990. Because the study’s findings minimized the impact of acid rain caused by humans, Congress and the media completely ignored them.

      “The NAPAP study found that among thousands of U.S. lakes, only 4 percent were somewhat acidic. One-quarter of those were acidic due to natural causes, leaving only 3 percent somewhat influenced by human activities.”

      https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/acid-rain-nitrogen-scares-debunked

    • dennisambler says:

      https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-made-the-acid-rain-myth-finally-evaporate-1.900603

      “How dangerous was acid rain? The most comprehensive study was commissioned in 1980 by US president Jimmy Carter. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Programme (NAPAP) examined the damage caused by acid rain and recommended solutions. In 1982 president Ronald Regan raised the annual budget for NAPAP to $100 million. The final cost of NAPAP, the most costly environmental study in US history, was $537 million.

      The situation turned out to be much more complex than had been predicted. The acidity of a lake is determined as much by the acidity of the local soil and vegetation as it is by acid rain. Many lakes in north-eastern America, dead in the 1980s, had plenty of fish in 1900.

      It was surmised by environmentalists that 20th-century sulphur dioxide emissions had choked these lakes to death with acid rain. But the NAPAP showed many of these lakes were acidic and fishless even before European settlement in America.

      Fish survived better in these lakes around 1900 because of extensive slash and burn logging in the area. The soil became more alkaline as the acid vegetation was removed, reducing the acid flowing into the lakes and making the water hospitable to fish. Logging stopped in 1915, acid soils and vegetation returned and the lakes became acidic again.”

      The similarity to climate change is the attempts by global companies to make money out of it:

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/02/11/remember-the-acid-rain-scare-global-warming-hysteria-is-pouring-down/2/#4dd59d463ffd

  8. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    “Paul Ehrlich is an immensely likeable guy…”

    Yeah, right! Wouldn’t we all like to party with Captain Buzzkill!

  9. Michael Spencer says:

    Another excellent video Tony, and certainly one that the merchants if doom propaganda won’t like one little bit. I can just see “Skeptical Science”, Desmog, etc. doing their best to stop it with more propaganda! And their faithful sheeple will nod and go “Baa! Baa!”

    There is an old adage that I’m fond of quoting which seems appropriate here: “Good news does not sell newspapers!”

    So, what’s news?

  10. Simon Platt says:

    Peak warmth in the 1930s? Where have I heard that before?

    • neal s says:

      So is Ehrlich the Harold Camping of the Eco-Nuts? Keep making outrageous predictions, and keep pushing it further and further back. Never concede you are wrong, and eventually you will either die before any disaster has happened, or a disaster happens (whether or not it was like what you predicted) and you lay claim on having predicted it. In this way, you just cannot lose.

      Or maybe he is more like Chicken Little.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.