The U.K.’s Members of Parliament returned from their summer holidays last week to give the final nod to the Energy Bill 2023. It is a leviathan piece of legislation in every sense of the word. It is 427 pages long. It has 15 parts and 330 separate provisions (many of which have lots of sub-provisions), not to mention another supplementary 22 schedules. Its full title alone consists of 130 words. It covers everything from the licensing of carbon dioxide storage to hydrogen grid trials to offshore energy production. And in every aspect it aggrandises the power of the State and gives sweeping executive authority to Government ministers. As law-making, it is a travesty. As policy, it is inexcusable. As an illustration of the indefensible way in which Western societies are coming to be governed, however, it is exemplary.
Explaining the substantive content of the Bill in full would take a long time, and it is not my intention to do that here. (There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the complexity of the Act and its consequent opacity to the lay reader and sheer unwieldiness for the commentator is deliberate. But that’s a subject for another post.)
Instead I wish to highlight some key features, and explicate what the Bill tells us about how we are currently governed and are likely to be governed in the future. I will also elucidate the negative consequences of this governing style. To achieve this, I’m afraid that I will have to touch upon a subject which even most legal philosophers think of as arid and sterile, namely the morality of law. But before doing this, let’s back up and sketch out the changing nature of law in modernity.
From Rules to Regulation
Once upon a time, law could be thought of as primarily consisting of rules that are applied to facts. Bob intends to kill, and kills, Graham; he has committed murder. Sarah’s contract with Chris was entered into on the basis of a misrepresentation, and therefore the contract can be rescinded. Etcetera. This is how laypeople still tend to think of law, and it is how law students are still generally taught: ‘thinking like a lawyer’ means being able to approach a set of facts concerning a dispute, and apply legal rules to determine the likely legal outcome.
Rules, of course, still exist, are still created, and are still applied. But the fashion, really ever since the birth of the administrative state in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has been to deploy law in a more regulatory way. Legislatures legislate, not primarily to make rules for ordinary people to follow, but to delegate power to administrative agencies or technical experts (or politicians advised by such agencies and experts) to make ad hoc, flexible rulings; to issue guidance and recommendations; to publish codes of conduct; to give and revoke licences; and so on as and when they see fit – often with a very wide discretion.
Roger Brownsword, an eminent legal scholar, gives us a useful shorthand for understanding this change, describing it as the transition from “Law 1.0” to “Law 2.0”. It represents, in essence, a move away from law understood chiefly as comprising rules per se, to law understood as policy. Legislation is not created simply to order the conduct of otherwise free citizens. It is created in order to give effect to governmental purposes. It is used not to make clear rules, but to delegate the authority necessary to effect desired changes of some kind within the economy or society, usually to the state’s ever-growing administrative bureaucracy (but also to private companies).
This is a plausible way of describing the history of legal developments over the past century and a half or so. And it has been frequently observed by people concerned with such matters that modern governance is a matter of – as Foucault put it – “tactics rather than laws”:
[Modern governance] is not a matter of imposing law on men, but of the disposition of things, that is to say, employing tactics rather than laws… I think this marks an important break… the end of government [is] to be sought in the perfection, maximisation or intensification of the processes it directs, and the instruments of government will become diverse tactics rather than laws.
The medieval concept of the sovereign as the upholder of the law (and, indeed, of good governance itself as being a matter simply of upholding the law), has thus gradually eroded over the course of modernity such that we are in the position in which we now find ourselves, with law simply being a tool to help the state manage society. It is not that laws are no longer made – legislation is still enacted and enforced – it is just that the point of legislation is no longer merely to make rules but to achieve purposes. And this very frequently means that legislation essentially delegates executive power to technicians, managers and what are inevitably referred to as ‘stakeholders’.
The Energy Bill 2023 is in many respects an example par excellence of the ‘Law 2.0’ mode of governance. To take one example, Part 5 of the Bill will when enacted create something called the Independent System Operator and Planner, a legal person (“likely a company“), which will do all sorts of vaguely-defined but important things, like “co-ordinating and directing the flow of electricity onto and over transmission systems”, “carrying out strategic planning and forecasting in connection with… the conveyance or supply of electricity [and] the conveyance and supply of gas”, “providing advice or information” to Government ministers, and so on. And the Bill also mandates that it shall do these things in view of three requirements: to achieve Net Zero, to secure energy supply, and to promote economy and efficiency. In other words, the Bill creates an independent entity (“likely a company”, remember, meaning it will have limited liability) with sweeping powers and wide discretion to regulate electricity and gas supplies as it sees fit in line with certain objectives.
The Emergence of Law 3.0
You will be with me so far. And if this kind of thing was all that the Energy Bill 2023 did, it would not be particularly noteworthy. It would simply be another depressing example of the way in which decisions of the most profound political importance are nowadays determined not by our elected legislatures, but by a penumbra of technical ‘experts’ and managers, acting either directly (through agencies and regulatory bodies) or through ‘advising’ Government ministers who then issue rules accordingly.
But this is not all that the Energy Bill 2023 does, and here we come to a fresher development in the relationship between law and the state. Importantly, Brownsword has recently been suggesting that we are rapidly advancing into the next iteration of law – Law 3.0 – in which law becomes essentially self-executing through technology and, indeed, the very exercise of subjecting human conduct to rules becomes subsumed by technological management. Here, the creation of rules itself will become seen as archaic, with technology providing us with better – more efficient, more rational, more effective – forms of justice than those available to the flawed system of law which we currently respect. The end result (the apotheosis of Law 3.0, as it were), will be the merging of technology with law, such that the requirement for rules to exist will disappear and human conduct will be more or less entirely managed by technology.
The example Brownsword uses – and it is an example used almost everywhere in the literature on this topic – is that of golf carts. We are invited to imagine the following scenario: a golf club buys in a new fleet of golf carts for members to use. But members keep driving them on the greens. The golf club could make it a rule for members not to drive on the greens, but, of course, there is no guarantee that such a rule would be complied with. Would it not be better, those referring to this scenario typically suggest, if there could be a technological solution instead? Would it not be better if the golf club just bought golf carts which, through the awesome power of digital tech, automatically stop working if they are about to go on the greens? Would that not be more efficient, and would it not achieve a more perfect result than simply making a rule?
The golf cart example is often invoked, one suspects, because it seems so benign. Who could object, the implication seems to be, to such a neat solution? Nobody would be harmed by golf carts which simply can’t be driven onto the greens. And everybody would benefit because there would be 100% achievement of the desired end. What would be the problem with this?
As is so often the case when blithe, abstract reasoning of this kind meets the real world, however, and we start to think about the implications in detail, the idea of law’s final union with technological management is revealed to be a genuinely terrifying prospect. This is because it will have two inevitable sets of consequences.
From Golf Carts to Energy Smart Appliances
The first set of consequences is bad enough, and will be obvious to anybody who has been paying attention. We already inhabit a scenario in which legislatures chiefly govern by authorising administrative agencies, regulative bodies, quangos, licensing authorities and so on to issue decrees and edicts as they see fit or to advise Government ministers to do likewise. Now imagine that said administrative agencies, etc., can make such decrees and edicts self-executing through technology, thus rendering non-compliance not simply illegal but impossible.
The tyrannical implications of such a mode of governance are so obvious that it really ought to go without saying. Golf carts are one thing, but given that our future seems to be populated almost exclusively by ‘internet of things’-connected ‘smart’ artefacts (fridges, cars, mobile phones, TVs, watches, even doors), and given the apparent lack of any principled limit on the purview of government in modernity, things begin to look increasingly dystopian when the implications of Law 3.0 are properly thought through.
And sure enough, sections of the Energy Bill 2023 give one pause when considered in the light of all this discussion about the union of technological management and law. Consider, for example, Part 9 of the Bill, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about something called “energy smart appliances and load control” (with this type of regulation being referred to as an “energy smart regulation”).
What is an “energy smart appliance”? Well, it’s “an appliance which is capable of adjusting the immediate or future flow of electricity into or out of itself or another appliance in response to a load control signal” (clause 234 (2)). What’s a “load control signal”? It means “a digital communication sent via a relevant electronic communications network to an energy smart appliance for the purpose of causing or otherwise facilitating such an adjustment [i.e. to the immediate or future flow of electricity]” (clause 234 (4)).
What does this Part of the Act therefore seem to entail? Well, without going into vast detail, it seems to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning the sending of load control signals to energy smart appliances (which do things like “refrigeration”, “cleaning tableware”, “washing or drying textiles”, and “heating”) in order to adjust the flow of electricity to them, and to control who has a licence to send such signals. Yes, if you’re keeping up: this appears to create the legal infrastructure to permit the Secretary of State (advised, of course, by the ‘experts’) to issue regulations concerning the flow of electricity into fridges, dishwashers, washing machines, and so on, and to delegate the issuing of load control signals themselves to approved licensees – presumably utility companies.
The explanatory notes to the Bill suggest this will be done to “help consumers save money on their energy bills” by “shift[ing] electricity usage to times when it is beneficial for the energy system” and thus “smart[ly] and flexib[ly]… control consumption”. Sceptics may wonder if this is the only reason why it will be done – and will also have their eyes unavoidably drawn to clause 237 (5) of the Bill, which will “allow enforcement authorities to impose requirements by written notice on persons to… make appliances compliant with energy smart regulations” (i.e., to ensure that their dishwashers, washing machines, etc. can receive load control signals). These sceptics may, if they are capable of parsing modern Parliamentary drafting, also have their eyes drawn to to clause 235 (4) (c) and clause 236 (3) of the Bill, which seem to give the Secretary of State the power to ban the sale of non-smart appliances.
Why would the Secretary of State need to ban the sale of non-smart appliances if their only purpose was to “help consumers save money on their energy bills”? Why would he or she need to require people to make sure their appliances are “energy smart”? I won’t insult your intelligence by spelling it out, but I don’t think “helping consumers save money on their energy bills” is the end of the story.
Setting aside the substance of the Bill itself, what I wish to emphasise here is its character. If Parliament wished to legislate in order to control energy consumption through clear rules (“each household may only use X number of kWH of electricity per day”) that might be authoritarian, but at least it would be clear – and at least it would then be subject to open debate. But that would be to govern through the creation of quaint old Law 1.0. We’re now in the era of Law 3.0, and we don’t even see rules of general application appearing at all. Instead we see legislation delegating authority to a Government minister to appoint licensees to issue “load control signals” to “smart appliances” on a “smart and flexible” basis in order to control energy consumption. The law, in other words, will self-execute through the technology itself, and non-compliance will become impossible – because our machines themselves will simply respond to the load control signals which they are sent. (And because we will have to use such machines, because the sale of others will be banned; ironically, we see here a vestigial role for Law 1.0 after all.)
The substantive purpose of the legislation is not really the issue here. You may agree entirely with the goal of reducing carbon emissions and you may agree with the goal of achieving ‘Net Zero’ by 2050. I reiterate: the problem is the indefensible way in which all of this is being realised – surreptitiously, and through what is effectively executive power wielded by unaccountable managers deploying technological methods which cannot be gainsaid and which are designed to achieve 100% compliance through making non-compliance physically impossible.
Law’s Inner Morality
This is just the first negative consequence of the deployment of ‘Law 3.0’, though. The second is, to my eye, worse, and it concerns the effects of all of this on human subjectivity and indeed on our capacity to act ethically in the first place. To explicate this, we need to turn briefly to the subject of what the legal philosopher Lon Fuller, writing in the 1960s, called ‘the “inner morality” of law.
Fuller, like many postwar legal theorists, was interested in the phenomenon of law exercised within the context of totalitarian regimes. The curious thing about Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was that, for all that they were brutal dictatorships, they still had the trappings of functioning legal systems: constitutions, courts, judges, advocates and all the rest. This raised a vexed question. We normally think of ‘the rule of law’ as a good thing. But Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, while appearing to have legal systems, hardly resembled the kinds of states that we think of when ‘the rule of law’ is mentioned. How, then, does one distinguish between societies which are governed by the rule of law from societies which are governed by purported legal systems but which are in fact oppressive and authoritarian?
Fuller’s answer was that law had an “inner morality” – which was distinct from matters of “external morality” (such as whether a given law had a morally right or wrong outcome). He asked us first to consider eight ways in which a lawmaker could “fail to make law”. These were:
- Producing no rules at all or making only ad hoc decisions
- Failing to make rules public
- Using retroactive rules
- Producing unclear rules
- Producing contradictory rules
- Producing rules with which it is impossible to comply
- Changing rules too often
- Deciding cases in such a way that outcomes bear no relation to the rules
Failing to make law, in these terms, was a violation of law’s inner morality, and a legal system which regularly and consistently failed to make law in any or all of these ways was therefore not to be thought of as comprising laws at all, but something else. And since legal systems in autocratic and totalitarian regimes very often violate law’s inner morality in these ways, this is why we are qualified to distinguish their purported laws from those which prevail in states where law’s inner morality is generally upheld.
Why did this matter so much, though? What’s so good about being governed by legal systems which have rules, where the rules are public, where they do not apply retrospectively, where they are clear, where they are not contradictory, etc.?
Here is one of those occasions in which it is beneficial simply to quote the man himself, in a passage of prose which ought to be reproduced as the compulsory PC desktop background of every legislator in every democracy in the world:
[Legal morality] cannot be neutral in its view of man himself. To embark on the enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules involves of necessity a commitment to the view that man is, or can become, a responsible agent, capable of understanding and following rules, and answerable for his defaults.Every departure from the principles of law’s inner morality is an affront to man’s dignity as a responsible agent. To judge his actions by unpublished or retrospective laws, or to order him to do an act that is impossible, is to convey to him your indifference to his powers of self-determination.
Governing human conduct by rules, in other words, is to treat the people who are subject to the rules as conscious, free-willed, sensible agents who are capable of understanding the world around them and accepting responsibility for their decisions. We are capable of knowing, for instance, the speed limit on a given stretch of road, and we are also capable of making the decision to go faster in full awareness that there may be negative consequences of doing so – which we accept. The speed limit does not compel us: we can choose to abide by it, or not. And this, most crucially of all, means that we have moral agency. We can choose to do right or wrong.
Fuller would not have put it in these terms, but he would therefore have agreed with Foucault’s observation that “freedom is the ontological condition of ethics”. Acting ethically requires the freedom to choose. If one does not have the freedom to choose, because one is compelled to act morally, then one’s moral conduct is not really moral at all. One is simply robotically doing what one is told, and one is in moral terms therefore indistinguishable from a robot. It seems tautologous to point out that this denudes us of one of the central characteristics – perhaps the central characteristic – of humanity: the capacity to choose to act morally, or not.
Law 3.0 was a development which Fuller could not really have foreseen. And it therefore introduces a ninth way of failing to make law to his list: one can fail to make law by making it impossible not to comply, through the deployment of technology. And in its way, this is the worst affront to the dignity of man out of them all, because it destroys the very conditions of moral agency. I reiterate: if one does not have the freedom to choose, because one is compelled to act morally, then one’s moral conduct is not really moral at all. The Energy Bill 2023 is therefore not only bad law because it is unclear, because it mostly delegates authority to make ad hoc decisions rather than rules, and so on. It is bad law because it seeks to automate compliance.
I would say that this has the effect of putting the subjects of the law into the position of children, but this would be to underplay the affront considerably. Children’s conduct (provided they have good parents) is subject to rules which are clear and understandable and with which they have the choice to comply, and children – as any parent knows – are masterful negotiators, adept at carving out exceptions to rules as required. Really, it puts the subjects of the law more into the position of rats in a Skinner Box, and here Fuller was prescient in warning us that once the inner morality of law is routinely violated, social order would have to be enforced through other, behavioural means: “Instead of telling men to be good, we [will] condition them to be good”, and instead of “judg[ing] a man, we [will] act upon him”. The mode of lawmaking which the Energy Bill 2023 exemplifies is one in which our legislators create the conditions for us to be simply acted upon.
We are not going to like where that leads. Having our energy consumption governed through ad hoc micromanagement of the electricity flow to our compulsorily purchased energy smart appliances on a moment to moment basis is dystopian enough. I invite you, though, to consider the other areas of life – both public and private – which are currently likely being eyed up by our legislators for the Law 3.0 treatment. It’s not about, and never has been about, mere golf carts on greens. It is about the fusion of law and technology in every sphere of our lives, and everything that will entail.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. This article first appeared on his Substack. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
You provide answer based upon close scurtiny of past events. Given that our whole understanding and epistomelogy is falling apart and that this is the meaning of our times and that Apocalypse means the lifting of the veil. There will be deeper discreditings than this one. But what is all of this tryng to tell you? It is trying to guide you to the realm of the spirit where no one can help or guide to to get there. Just listen to the vibe of our time and the feeling in the air and try to find resonance.
The only way to see the past or present or future is through clairyoyance. And that is a difficult and rocky path for all those who are called to it. Doesn’t matter that is the beauty of our species. Our humanity shines stronger than ever in this time in my view. In a time of unveiling I think that clairvoyance will be shared with everyojne.
That sounds esoteric, but it’s true that there is a lot that we don’t know.
Do you not see the permanent damage that you are doing the mythos of your country. You really have and you really are. I am not a particularly nationalistic person but people like you make me feel sick. Perhaps you desire a call to arms. I would advise against it.
The future can never resemble a model because a model is essentially a projection of a trend. Each moment in the future is blest with its own magic. Nobody knows it. Anyone who tells you that they do is heading for a fall. I have learned that. There are forces which give us pictures or projections but if you listen closely they tell you to listen to more important things. I am sure that I don’t need to mention them. All I can say is have a realistic estmation of your own abilities.
could do is make the meeting hall where you choose to get together, to be as beautiful and resonant as possible. Then when you have them beguiled you can charm them with your words. It doesn’t matter. No gentleman can support such action.
Have you been drinking all night and not been to bed?
This statement annoys me. It suggests that what I think would be good for me is equivalent to what someone else thinks is good for me.
During COVID – and constantly. in public life – there are people who think they have the authority and right to make decisions for everyone. Those people should have more humility and accept they don’t know what is best for everyone. But they don’t.
I have every right to decide what is best for me – be it buy a petrol car or an electric one, wear a mask or not, go out into the street or stay at home – and to reject someone else’s opinion isn’t per se a lack of humility.
And that seems to me the essential difference between the two camps – it’s not a simple difference of opinion about what the “right” thing to do is, but a difference of opinion about the proper limits on the ability of the collective to impose their will on the individual. We need a different country.
The author seems to assume that “something had to be done” and the poor old government had to make a choice, probably made a mistake but it was a genuine one. There’s a base assumption that the state has every right to make such decisions, even if they turn out to be wrong, as long as they are entered into honestly.
Not just the right but the obligation. It’s reached a point where to do nothing just isn’t an option. Deciding to stay out the way and let people decide things for themselves is nowadays is gross negligence and a dereliction of duty by the state. Something must be done. Anything. And like you say even if it’s a catastrophe, as.long as it was in good faith, all good.
Indeed, obligation, good point.
I don’t want to be in the same country as people who believe that. I don’t feel I have much common ground with the majority of people I know personally.
I had lunch with my ex last week.
It was clear that she’d forgotten that I’ve never been jabbed, have never worn a mask, have never taken any notice of the moronic rules/guidelines.
Which strongly suggests that I’m the only person she knows who has behaved in that way.
Other than people I’ve met through sceptic forums, I only know five people in real life who did not take the “covid vaccine” and two of those are me and my Mrs.
I know only two, my niece and her husband. Depressing.
Bloody hell I thought I had it bad.
Very sadly I have to agree with you tof:
“I don’t feel I have much common ground with the majority of people I know personally.”
What is missing is one statement of fact, namely that governments everywhere acted in unison. This has nothing to do with stupid modellers and confused politicians because in truth they had all been given their scripts.
And if it was all headless Chickens panicking all over the place, and some point the panic driven cock-ups would go in our favour. But as we say, every crisis was an excuse to suck individual liberties and reward to the state.
Every penny paid in tax is a decision taken out of your hands.
Often those decisions are made by people who actively hate you.
“Often those decisions are made by people who actively hate you.”
That feeling is becoming mutual…
“That feeling is
becomingmutual…”Apologies tof.
And now they want Council taxpayers to pay for their heating because they’re mostly working from home!
Governments though are given responsibility to supposedly look after what is best for all individuals. ——-If they think it is best to go to war then they will do that. If they think it is best to double your electricity bill based on assumptions about the climate they will do that. If they decide everyone should wear a mask then they will do that. ——Governments cannot be expected to make decisions based on what individuals think or believe otherwise they would never do anything because we all have different world views. Our only hope is that governments do the right thing based on what is best overall and they do that honestly taking all information into account. ———–Alas governments today are less trusted than ever before and many are realising that they have agenda’s other than what is best for their own citizens and now pander to unaccountable Supra National Institutions (UN, WEF, WHO etc) rather than to the people who vote for them
“…the problem was that politicians were confronted with scientists who in reality didn’t have a clue what to do, were floundering around, giving conflicting advice, and generally causing mayhem. As usual, real events didn’t pan out according to the plans and predictions.
To be fair, what else would one have expected? Who would or could have known what to do?”
Seriously? Words fail me.
“Yet “it was both politicians and scientists making mistakes”…”
God give me strength.
Mistakes?
Lockstep, dictated from somewhere (WHO or beyond). Scientists and politicians knew exactly what to do, and did it – ditch long-standing plans which amounted to doing very little (which is what had always been done and would have been the correct thing to do) and shut down the world, and sell everyone an untested “vaccine”. Yeah, floundering.
“Who would or could have known what to do?”
The people who had drawn up the established response.
Which was replaced by opposite policies on the basis of no evidence or reasoning process whatsoever.
Sweden, the people who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration.
All just a cockup.
Does the author not read the other articles on this website. Plenty of evidence of collusion just like with Swine Flu in 2009.
It was a full 180 on the flick of a dime, but yeah, just cock-up FFS. Why are they all rewarded for failure is a reasonable question.
There is a central issue which everyone needs to address, which can vaguely be described as the understanding of the paramaters of consciousness. I don’t want to go into it given the gravity of our geopolitical situation I just want to say it doesn’t matter as lomg as you’re honest. We might get chastised or deleted but we probably won’t get a 2000 lb bomb dropped on our head. There were some severely damaged chidren after thhose weeks of Israeli bombardment and some had made tentative recoveries only to hear the bombardment again. Take it from me, this event is probably the most important event in 4000 years in terms of the feelings that are evoked. I never take refuge in prejudice but all of my friends, all very well-educated people, have said that they will feel nothing but loathing for Jews in the future. I mean total peacenik types I would’ve never imagined they aould talk that way.
If you just spend a few months studying the philosophy of science you will see all of these issues brought out into the daylight. In Norway for example there is a basic philsophy course which you have to take in order to underpin any degree, which includes philosophy of science. I think that this is a wise idea. On the other side philosophers care little for science which leads to its own occlusion.There is no way to point people in the right direction we just owe it to make the attempt.
Modelling appears to be the modern equivalent of scapulimancy.
The Naskapi Tribe used to heat up the bones of a dead animal on the fire until the first crack developed. That crack would be used to indicate the direction in which the next hunting party should set off.
And, of course, both modelling and scapulimancy suffer from the same weaknesses, susceptibility to interpretation and manipulation.
That being said, burning some old bones is a great deal cheaper than Professor Pantsdown’s stipend so I recommend that the government sacks all its modellers and gives the Tribal Chief of all the Naskapi, Chief Theresa Chemaganish, located, I believe, in Kawawachikamach, a call….
Modelling can surely be useful but the key thing is to keep checking whether what the model predicted actually then comes to pass, and continually refine it if it proves inaccurate. That’s clearly not always how it is used…
Of course models are useful, I agree, but, as the man said, they are all wrong.
I think we all know that disreputable chancer modellers, of which there are not a few, pretty much make it up (manipulate to get the desired ‘right’ answer) as they go along…..to fit the narrative given by the financier, very much like pollsters…..
Far cheaper to burn some bones and get the same answer anyway.
Presumably you’ll get him on the dog and bone.
Home sweet home….
Coup detat’s true identity revealed
Much of ‘science’ is 100% junk. Much of ‘the science’ terrain is in dispute. Newtonian gravity vs shadow gravity, Einstein’s abstract maths and STR which are so full of holes it makes swiss cheese look solid, bang religion, climate fascism, the flu fascism, the shrew to you theology, endless ages – most of these are metaphysical projects and much of it evil.
Speaking of history I will say this – I get more of a ‘renaissance’ imbibing Aquinas, Bonaventure, Assisi and Buridan – than I do from the ‘enlightenment’ where abstractions replace reality, proofs eschewed for hand-waving, all the way down to Einstein.
As for models – laughable. These idiots can’t model what happened yesterday and as Mann et al and Climategate proved – most of them are bullshit. As Rona elaborated, worse than bullshit, more like horseshit. Data fraud and make up propaganda is now science. Show me the flying virus from the air, with the dna of the ‘disease’. If you can’t show it, shut up.
As someone who has built complex data models I know that ‘my peers’ don’t have a fracking clue and anything I build will be approved. So much for consensus.
And as for “Germ Theory”……… Utter nonsense
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/first-do-harm-a-sorry-tale-in-the-daily-mail/
Daily Mail obviously under paid instruction to go after a doctor who happens to be operating in the best interests of her patients. No surprises.
What’s the TLDR version?
BTW Engineering modelling works, if you don’t believe so then don’t fly or drive anywhere. QED is the most accurate physics model according to Feynman.
Modelling outside the hard sciences however is usually performed by people not up to hard science.
https://x.com/kimdotcom/status/1730230555000574003
From Dr Mike Yeadon’s Telegram.
A Whistleblower has put out the fact that the Pfizer “vaccines” were deliberately tainted.
An epidemiologist has stated that “the vaccines are the pathogen.”
Indeed. So much for “scientists” “floundering”.
I’m afraid much of this article seems like re-heated cockup theory to me.
The alternative to serial cock-ups all in the same direction all over the world at roughly the same time by fundamentally well-meaning people has implications so horrific that people like Guy just dare not consider it
I think there’s a good deal of denial going on, and wishful thinking. I don’t seem to be capable of this – the future looks pretty bleak to me.
I agree.
I’d say history begins the moment something is past.
From that point onwards, it is a matter of opinion, not fact.
Prophecy, the history of the duture, scripturally, is different. The prophet is either 100% accurate or is not. In the Old Testament, the rules for false prophets were severe.
Modelling is NOT science. ———Does anyone think a pocket calculator is mathematics? ———The calculator is a tool that helps you do calculations quicker than you would do them yourself. It does not provide the answer to things whose variables and parameters you don’t know. Similarly with a climate model if you do not understand the effects of clouds, or water vapour, or the correct value for Climate Sensitivity to greenhouse gasses and you simply enter a guess or an assumption into your model the answer you get will not be worth anything. That is shown to be true by the fact that climate models have all been way off the mark till now and they cannot even hindcast climate that we know has occurred. I recall a Lead Author at the IPCC saying that “There has to be something fundamentally wrong with our models as a 20 year pause in warming does not appear in any of them”. ———-He still thinks there is global warming and believes that to be true, but believing things are true is religion, not science.—-Modelling is not science
Is the truth what we think it is, or the present activity of thinking ? It seems to be thought that creates the subjective reality of time, within whose contextuality we think we live. Modelling seems to be what we do all the time…