To repeat a personal axiom I used in my previous post – If you don’t know where you come from, then how can you know who you are or where you are going? I think that is a valid basis, not just for the pursuit of the Greek admonition to self-awareness, to ‘know thyself’, but for many, if not all aspects of everyday life. Then we might not be fated to wandering, seemingly haphazardly through the ages of history and even through our own comparatively short lives. I wish also that climate scientists, planners, industrialists and governments, would also follow that maxim with regard to their own work. In all of those endeavours, a detailed knowledge of history and use of that knowledge to guide our efforts in determining our future, would yield much benefit. Not only directly but also as a means of not falling into traps for the unwary along the way. My gravest fear is that global consensus on climate change will lead us to inevitably fall into such a trap – from which we may not escape. And with rogue leaders like Trump calling the shots these days (hopefully not for long), all of humanity lays extremely exposed to his mad whims.
Modern climate science does, from my non-academic but broadly read perspective, confine its search for ‘know where you come from’ mainly to post 1850 history – as though anything which happened before that time has no relevance. This is a stupid and short-sighted viewpoint. And even that curtailed outlook, which is used solely as a hazy backdrop to the closer and superiorly data-served period of the last four and a half decades of satellite measurements, when taking its insecure and absurdly biased projections for the future. Scientists do not see, or have been persuaded not to recognise, the very obvious deviations on which they build their theoretical projections. Theories which are then promoted to facts, on which to build future solutions to the observed problems the miserably derelict process has served up. What hope is there for enlightenment from consuming that particular soup? None! I can wearily tell you. None at all. And yet we have all eaten bowls-full of the slop. And we firmly believe our civilisation, even our lives, are in some level of danger from the projected changes. Are we not fools?
Well, I’m not, although I was for a while. Until I began to look back in search of our true beginnings. And then further, to the foundations of our planet and solar system. I was doing that from broader reasons than simply climate issues, nut nevertheless that was included in the package of course. And I saw that the real picture looked nothing like the dire image projected by modern climate science – which is literally theoretical and mostly ‘sleight of hand’* theatrics.
* I am coming to view the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary as the foremost such online volume for a correct appreciation of little understood words. The M-W definition for ‘sleight of hand’, for example, currently includes this sample sentence (samples are automatically selected to retain currency)…
The real persuasive sleight of hand is to convince billions of human users that their interests align with tech companies’—that using a chatbot, and especially this chatbot above any other, is for the best.—Matteo Wong, The Atlantic, 4 Dec. 2025
…I am convinced the biggest ‘sleight of hand’ of the modern age would be for ‘climate catastrophe’ used in the same vein as in that sample…
The real persuasive sleight of hand is to convince billions of human users that their interests align with modern climate science—that using catastrophic climate computer modelling, above any other method, is for the best. – Bernie Edwards, Notsomethingelse, Jan 12, 2026
A world so convinced of that and tied to a course which attempts to achieve supremacy over climate, is doomed to failure as a direct result of whatever actions are contemplated.
There is a better way to judge climate and I found a new source of information on that, which I will begin discussing in the next post. Stay tuned.
Not Something Else 
Leave a comment