Updated: Dec 28, 2021
We are in the midst of a pandemic, a misinformation pandemic. A global campaign with the intent to control the thoughts and actions of the communities we find ourselves a part of world-wide. It's alarming that sometimes the publication of misleading information could possibly be released knowingly with bad intentions, however, we can be misled and find negative baseless outcomes from the ignorance of publishers as well. This is why I encourage myself and others to take responsibility as the people who hold the reigns in order to make our own determinations and hold each other accountable, especially when it comes to feeding our minds during this ongoing effort by us noble citizens to improve society as a whole. We need to choose not to be a victim and conquer poorly studied opinions; Conquer misinterpretations; Conquer misleading scientific data; Conquer propaganda; Question everything, and help others understand how you have found your personally held truths when they seek clarity.
One mantra we hear echoed by much of the Mockingbird corrupt Media and it's followers is, "Trust the science!" This is typically in an effort to convince people to accept somebody else's opinion as fact. In my experience, more often than not, this is regularly regarding the unpopular Covid vaccine narrative or inglorious data interpretations brought to the forefront of the fake news machine. I would like to take this opportunity and show you how this "Trust the science!" angle can be taken advantage of outside of the great Covid scam to control other narratives that drive a misguided stake between us.
Joshua Reid has strung the pearls over and over again when it comes to debunking the mainstream indoctrination narratives revolving around Covid by utilizing their data but in a more transparent and honest manner. It's fascinating to witness how our entire perception of the data is shifted when critical analysis and responsibility to understand the information is taken. The narrative falls together completely contrary to the mainstream folktales almost every time we consider all of the facts and draw our own logical conclusions. Explore and share the articles below where this has been done and then carry on below to see how else people can be deceived by what I consider deceptive means used by Scientists and Media alike and understand to a greater extent why taking personal responsibility in digesting any information is critically important to me..
Claims That Climate Change Could Shut Down Main Ocean Currents Is Misleading and Based On Incommensurate Science
At the Redpill Project we have come together with many individuals in order to gain a better understanding of the world as it turns as well as everything that encompasses that. Recently, myself along with others, began noticing headlines such as, (#1)"Study warns of 'irreversible transition' in ocean currents that could rapidly freeze parts of North America" By Doyle Rice (USA Today), and, (#2)"Climate Change Could Shut Down A Vital Ocean Current, Study Finds" By Chris D'Angelo (HUFFPOST). I've developed my own understanding after a deeper examination of the data referenced as well as after having discussions with my peers regarding the information therein.
I felt it was crucial to look deeper into these articles after glassing over the headlines because of the implications of what could be interpreted as conclusive by not fully understanding the full scope of the data and instead focusing on what the headlines might imply. I'm a strong believer that publishing a misleading click-bait title, even if within that article it is cleared up, an ethical boundary has been passed. It's unethical because most people are only influenced by the title and spread that misinformation unwittingly to others in a toxic ripple of ignorance driven disinformation dissemination. For readers that go on to read an entire article, it is argued that they are still affected by the misleading title regardless, according to this study.
In other studies it is shown that the majority of people don't even read past headlines. With the number of headlines I read I can see why we don't read every article that comes across our plates, especially for those that have a smart phone. When I'm in this situation I ask colleagues if they know more, or I set it aside to re-visit when I have time to take a closer look. I'll admit that unfortunately, like most people, Looking back on my life, admittedly, I've fallen victim to bad information before and gone forward to spread it more times than I'd probably like to confess.
Through my research into the studies regarding the ocean currents and information surrounding them it's become obvious to me that these articles and even the studies themselves are what many including myself would consider click-bait, misleading, fake news, propaganda, fugaze, 'Fauci Facts', or bullsh*t.
In the first article mentioned above the author goes into their understanding of the first linked reference, "Major Atlantic ocean current system might be approaching critical threshold" which also references a similar study from 2018. My first qualm with these references is that they do not directly link to the entire study. This brings so many questions to mind. Why don't they link directly to the source? Does the author fully understand the scenarios they are writing about? Does the author know their reference doesn't meet expectations like mine? Did they review any source information themselves? Attempts to solidify their conclusions are achieved by corroborating others such as the Washington Post who takes the same fear-based approach to extrapolating their misleading story. Secondly in the 2018 reference they admittedly utilize, "comparisons to the scientifically inaccurate 2004 disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow" which used such an ocean current shutdown as the premise of the film." Once again, that link goes to a similar article which appears to have reference links that are not functional as of 8/7/2021, again, instead of linking directly to any source data.
Thankfully they do at least tell us the author of the study, "Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation". It's Niklas Boers. This leaves it up to a determined individual to take it upon themselves to discover the baseline information used to come to all of the, "The world is ending", narratives being delivered.
In the Abstract of that article they insinuate that the data may point towards the conclusion that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) may have evolved from relatively stable conditions. The language used indicates it is inconclusive. The main thing it appears they want to be taken away is that the ocean will all of the sudden become stagnant and therefore causing much of the world to freeze as a result, but I'm still not convinced. Not even close.
The second article, "Climate Change Could Shut Down A Vital Ocean Current, Study Finds" By Chris D'Angelo utilized the same reference study from the journal Nature Climate Change that the (#1) previous article covered pointed to.
Let's take a peak at some of the interesting quotes from the study and it's references to other studies that helped me draw my conclusion.
"It remains debated whether this should be interpreted as evidence for a monostable AMOC under current climate conditions, or rather as evidence for excessive AMOC stability in these models" (680 First Paragraph). This is noted because in a study from 2014, Section 5 they explicitly mention something dire, "Our experiments show that the surface climate bias distorts the subsurface salinity distribution such that the AMOC freshwater export is diminished or even reversed, leading to a model biased toward a monostable AMOC." AMOC is the foundation of the doom and gloom climate catastrophe, and if it's plagued by bias why aren't these articles given more scrutiny.
"...AMOC is widely accepted to play a key role, the exact chain of mechanisms is still under debate." (680 Second Paragraph). No kidding!
In reference #6 in the article it states, "However, up to now, no state-of-the-art atmosphere-ocean coupled global climate model (AOGCM) has exhibited such behavior, leading to the interpretation that the AMOC is more stable than simpler models indicate." This is an anomaly! Certainly more research needs to be done prior to drawing conclusions I would say.
In reference #6 again, it indicates three key issues according to them that are possibilities, " (i) the observational estimates are flawed, (ii) the value of Fov switched from being positive to negative before the 1950s, or (iii) the AOGCMs are not realistically representing the transports of salinity."
The study also says, "Although these results do not allow direct inference regarding the AMOC, they give a first indication that the Atlantic Ocean circulation system may be losing stability." (684) The entire premise of the study is AMOC related. Why are the same scientists writing this then deriving "logical" conclusions or inferring from the shaky premises they bring forward? Not just any conclusions either but conclusions that bring fear to people without easily obtainable disclaimers or up front explanations.
I have yet to come across the peer review to the study.
With all of this considered I can't come to the same conclusions that these articles and scientists have drawn in true mockingbird fashion.
I found another somewhat similar study published just weeks prior to Niklas Boers' titled, "20th century cooling of the deep ocean contributed to delayed acceleration of Earth’s energy imbalance" by A. Bagnell & T. DeVries
This studies abstract states, "The historical evolution of Earth’s energy imbalance can be quantified by changes in the global ocean heat content. However, historical reconstructions of ocean heat content often neglect a large volume of the deep ocean, due to sparse observations of ocean temperatures below 2000 m. Here, we provide a global reconstruction of historical changes in full-depth ocean heat content based on interpolated subsurface temperature data using an autoregressive artificial neural network, providing estimates of total ocean warming for the period 1946-2019."
In a response to concerns of the study by Peer reviewer number 3, the author of the study responds, "In all, the findings of this study should motivate a deeper investigation of Earth's climate sensitivity, which measures the strength of the surface warming response versus the difference between the radiative forcing and EEI (Earth's Energy Imbalance). However, this topic deserves its own in-depth analysis that is beyond the scope of this paper." Page 22 Peer review
For me this indicates that with these types of climate studies that utilize the best simulation technology and data analysis by utilizing an artificial neural network to fill in the blanks, we still can't draw conclusive determinations from the data with the amount of certainty I'd be comfortable with spreading as fact. With the progression of artificial intelligence I believe we will one day soon have more conclusive, higher certainty answers to many of the age-old questions.