Flash! Flash, I love you…..

….but we only have 14 hours to save the earth.

We have good news and bad news.

Bad news; it’s no longer 12 years to save the planet, but 18 months.

Good news; by January 2021, we can finally stop reading how long we will have to save the planet as it will be too late.

Unless you’re utterly bored today, don’t bother clicking the link to the article on the BBC website as it’s clearly been written by their AI Climate Bot (tm).

Artificial Intelligence journalism articles are often indistinguishable from human-generated pieces but there are tell-tale signs to be found if one looks hard enough.

An intelligent human, for example, even one who was massively ideologically biased, would never write a statement such as,

Do you remember the good old days when we had “12 years to save the planet”?

…without at least a little introspection on how many times a deadline had been previously given that had subsequently been passed without obvious consequence.

As a persuasive technique, it’s a terrible strategy to ask the question, do you remember when we only had 12 years left, as it prompts several unhelpful answers in the mind of the reader.

Such as;

Bill’s Opinion

Depending on your age, health, genetics and lifestyle, you probably have somewhere between zero and seventy years left.

I strongly suspect the earth, humanity and most of the other species will still be getting along just fine long after you’re gone.

Claims of this being our “last chance” are, at best, delusional, but more likely motivated by a desire for a combination of wealth, power, fame and attention.

That our media agree to publish this spoonfed nonsense without critical analysis tells you everything you need to know about how much else of their content can be trusted.

8 Replies to “Flash! Flash, I love you…..”

    1. Assuming that the climate apocalypse was for real and the second hand was one tick away from midnight, publishing crap on the BBC would be very low on the list of urgent priorities. That moron has found he can make a comfortable living writing sensationalist scare stories.

      Jack Handey: “Someone once told me that it’s scary how much topsoil we’re losing every year. I told that story around the campfire and nobody got scared.”

  1. “Unless you’re utterly bored today”

    Or retired.

    On the days to go bit, I am showing my age here, but lets not forget in the seventies we had the global cooling scare, fair dinkum, it wasn’t looking good at all back then, I thought we were going to freeze our arses off I did.

    Climate science credibility has been completely debunked and the peer review process shown to be a total sham. Its the same for all the sciences and medical as well, even the honest leaders of respectable publications now openly admit this.

    “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” Professor Richard Horton, editor-in chief of the Lancet

    I have been doing a bit of historical research around my recent trip to the Balkans and found some problems with peer reviewed historical documents. They have a different type of problem though ie they can only be based on primary documents, which means most publications can only be based on documents that “they” decided not to get rid off back in the days when they were winning wars and destroying evidence. There is zero scope for another view getting through or using the correlating circumstantial evidence publications getting through a historical peer review, even though a court and jury could get you hung on this type of reliable evidence. Historical peer reviews and the process hasn’t yet been challenged, with no scandals yet but its coming. See this succinct description of what their peer review process is linked below.

    This is the final sentence.

    “The American Historical Association believes that such peer review will best serve the American people who fund the research.”

    Think about that for a moment. Peer review is for the benefit of those who pay for research to be done, which most of the time is the state or moneyed interests with their very deep pockets over the years.

    https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/statements-standards-and-guidelines-of-the-discipline/statement-on-peer-review-for-historical-research

    1. “Or retired.”

      Don’t make me embarrass you about the difference between past and past participle tenses again.

      But yes, that recent scandal about bullshit peer reviewed scientific studies was a source of mild amusement.

      The problem is, of course, that as soon as it was reported it was memory-holed.

      The narrative is everything in the Culture War, truth being the first casualty as always.

      1. “truth being the first casualty as always”

        Which raises the question of how long do you think it is that they have been telling us porkies for?

        Or maybe did they ever not?

        1. Good question.

          If you consider it for a while, you’re actually asking more than one question;
          1. Has the news always been lies?
          2. Has it always been intentional or was it previously just genuine mistakes?
          3. Has it become worse or better over time?

          I’m going 1-yes, 2-both, 3-the trend is becoming worse.

          I heard today that Boris was sacked from the Times in the 90s for making up quotes. I suspect, depending on where he was writing, that would be a slap on the wrist these days.

          In fact, hello George Eaton and your article on Sir Roger Scruton!

  2. Same here with 1 & 2 although I have a different perspective on 3.

    It has always been the same level of porkies although now we have alternative media as opposed to mainstream (establishment) media, which is highlighting “fake news”. Although the same fuckers own both camps, and are deliberating creating a conflict between them, in order that they can blow up the established one and create a new one when the phoenix rises from the ashes of the established one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.