Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Are we manipulated into thinking pollution is a terrible problem?

'By the year 2000 20% of the earth population will be dead from pollution'.

'They lied to me in school, back in 1971! It's entirely untrue that 20% of the world's population is dead!', a lot of people claim.

They are right. As a matter of fact: of all people living on the planet today exactly zero percent is dead. Yes, that's right: of all people alive today in the world not a single one has died from pollution!

Were the teachers, scientists and all other 'lefties' in the seventies just scaring us in order to control us because scared people are more easily controlled? Not really. Pollution is a real problem. And living people are not dead. But the internet proves it's very easy to confuse dumb right leaning stupid gullible people with fake numbers and dito statistics.

Unfortunately a lot of people go for false arguments, manipulitave wording and convincing looking statistics. A few examples:

False arguments:

'Most people with autism have been vaccinated. That proves vaccination leads to autism.'
Nonsense of course. Just look: 'Most people who voted Trump drank milk as a child. That proves drinking milk improves the odds of one day buying a MAGA-hat significantly.' and 'By far most alcoholics today used to wear diapers as a kid. That must mean the Secret World Order puts a secret substance in our babies' diapers to make them dependent on alcohol, turning them into sick poor bastards.'

Manipulative wording:

'Scientific DNA-tests performed on inmates on Death Row show only 2% may not have commited the crime the sick bastard was accused of. Proving DNA-testing is a valid method of stating a whopping 98 percent is righfully executed!'

'DNA-tests show 1 in 50 inmates on Death Row is innocent!'

Different figures? No. The figures are from the exact same dataset. It's just a lot of people don't realize '1 in 50' is the exact same number as '2 percent'


Lea Gaslowitz teaches us how to spot a misleading graph. Showing us 'undeniable data!' is a method favored by not only politicians but also big companies. Both luring us into buying election rhetoric and cars. For example.

A few more (sometimes disturbing!) examples by Mark Liddell:

But moving on to pollution:

Which countries are the world's worst polluters?

According the the World Health Organisation (click) 3 million people a year worldwide die from outdoor pollution. Compared to the 26,000 who died from terrorism in 2017 (0,05% of all 56 million people who died that year) significantly more. Since everyone with a working brain can understand '3 million' is a whole lot more than '26,000', how come so many people are not afraid of pollution but are afraid of terrorism?

'Yeah, all fine. But a professor said that when someone in 1970 stated 'in the near future' over a 100,000 people a year will die from pollution. He was spectacularly wrong!' Yes, professor Mark J. Perry did that in this piece (click). Next to claiming the predictions in 1970 were way off the mark (the predicted 100,000 death a year from pollution is far less than the 3 million deaths from pollution that became reality. So he really is right. Just not in the way he wants us to believe.) Mark Perry tries to tell people we shouldn't worry 'because pollution is really not that bad. 'They' just want you to think that.'

Interestingly mr. Perry (or a ghostwriter who wrote the piece on his behalf. Hard to tell.) not only makes numerous false statements but works for the American Enterprise Institute (click), funded by the Koch Brothers, the right wing billionaires who use their money to manipulate civilians and politicians alike. Other big financial contributors to this 'think thank' that likes to spread easily debunked false claims, are tobacco producer Philip Morris and oil giant ExxonMobil. If you dig just a little further you will find out one of the foundations paying Professor Perry, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and dozens of other people on the political right (just a coincidence of course that every single one of the member of the American Enterprise Institute  could act as an 'expert' on the Fox Entertainment Channel!) is based on the fortunes of the Vick Vaporub family.

Makes you think, right?

So please, before you believe a claim (and share it), try to make sure you are not manipulated. I know thinking and investigating takes time and effort and watching an episode of a soap or sports is less strenious but the effort is worth it. Unless you prefer to live in a fake world.

Want to read (more of) my short stories? My author page: Terrence Weijnschenk at Amazon

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Communicating with a woman

'I'm so bored!'
'Well, maybe you can finally sort your holiday pictures, help your elderly neighbour with her groceries, paint the hallway, clean out the cat's litterbox, write a piece on what to do against being bored,...'
'Where would I find the time!? Do you think I'm bored!?'
'Yes, Because you stated 'I'm so bored!' Remember?'
'When was that? I never am and would never say that!'

Want to read (more of) my short stories? My author page: Terrence Weijnschenk at Amazon

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Save the planet! Go nuclear!

Greta Thunberg traveled across the ocean in a zero-emission ship. But even if she had taken to flight to spread her message ('Stop polluting our planet! Save the environment!'), would it be worth less spreading? The young lady from Sweden does not receive money to talk about her convictions. In fact she refused to accept an Environmental award (click) with a big sum of money attached to it. So the narrative: 'She is doing all this for personal financial gain' is debunked.

But what if she díd get paid? What's so terrible about getting paid to follow your heart?

Why do people shout at a little girl for wanting to save the planet and speak of shameful behaviour when a known liar is boo'ed?

'Greta Thunberg is a lobbyist for climate activists!' Actual lobbyists get paid. Lobbyists who push the agenda that nuclear power is the way of the future. Because it's cheap energy. When it's harvested in a safe way. Which it isn't. Yet. The toxic waste alone could cause an unprecedented disaster and end life as we know it. But don't let such a tiny detail ruin your day. Or the life of everybody and every plant and animal on the planet. Here's an article (click) pushing 'nuclear' as an environmentally friendly way to produce energy. It is written by lobbyist Michael Shellenberger. His lobbygroup 'Environmental Progress' has some interesting ties (click) with the regime of North Korea and claims 'nobody got sick at Fukushima and the evacuation was totally unnecessary because the meltdown was absolutely safe.'

In an article on Forbes (click) Shellenberger quotes an unidentified expert: “While I am an advocate for renewable energy, my motivation is driven by economics, not by warm and fuzzy feelings,” a renewable industry leader emailed me recently to say.' Who this 'renewable industry leader' is, remains a mistery. At least until Mr. Shellenberger has answered me:
In said article Shellenberger links to an article (click) in which the author agrees with Shellenberger. Perhaps Shellenberger hopes not everyone notices the author of the article that 'proves' Shellenberger's point is...Shellenberger.

'Saying Climate Change is caused by humans is just an opinion!' If that's true, so is: 'It really hurts when someone hits you really hard on the nose!' The presented evidence is similar to this example: 'See, I've hit this guy on the nose really hard and he didn't even flinch!' -'That's probably because he's dead.' 'But you said it always hurts when you hit someone on the nose! I just proved you lied!' Ha! -'I meant a living person.' 'Because I proved you wrong, you're now changing your narritive! That proves you knew you were lying and means I'm right. Ha ha, I won! Nah, nah nah nah nah!'

Mr. Shellenberger has been found to 'accidentally get his facts wrong' (Fox-speak for 'lying') on other climate issues (click) as well. But that's probably coincidental. Just that an influential politician happily endorsing Michael Shellenberger, Justin Clark (click) just happens to be in charge of the team of lobbyists 'selling' the 'President Trump is the greatest! (click)' brand to interest groups. An interest group that's very populair with politicians who suppert Trump is 'Environmental Progress (click)'. From Michael Shellenberger.

Want to read (more of) my short stories? My author page: Terrence Weijnschenk at Amazon

Thursday, January 09, 2020

Since when was Qassem Soleimani an imminent threat?

'People who pose an imminent threat to American lives may be executed (click) without any kind of trial.' That was the message president Trump send the world early in this year when he ordered the execution of Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general who was responsible for attacks in which people were killed.

According to this belief it is okay for any foreign country to execute Donald Trump. Since he is responsible for attacks in which people were killed. Like the five unnamed people killed in the bombing of Soleimani. And many other strikes. In hospitals, schools, et cetera.

The government of The Netherlands has officially stated it doesn't care at all that the USA simply ignored internatiol law, treaties, human rights and all that other stuff that takes the fun out of blowing things and people up. But has asked for 'an explanation'. In the future America will think twice before they 'forget' to contact their allies before they violently dismember a terrorist! Because who would want Dutch Defence Secretary Bijleveld to nicely ask you for an explanation for your extremely violent behaviour?

Just months ago the Secretary had 'accidentally told alternative facts and witheld information' (click) concerning the 'accidental' (again) killing of some 70 Iraqi civilians in an attack on ISIS. 'Yeah, well, things happen. People shouldn't make a big fuss about it.'

Interestingly enough the Iranian leader, who has been known to head the Quds forces since 1998, killing thousands of civilians, was only 'an imminent threat' since a few hours after (...) his early demise. Coaincidentally a few weeks after president Trump becoming the third American president ever to get impeached.

It raises the question: if  'The Greatest Military Force in the World' knew Soleimani was a villain back in 1998, why did they wait so long to elimante him? Perhaps because it's common knowledge that a killed general will not stop his army?

Until recently Soleimani was an important US ally (click) in the battle against the Taliban, al Qaida and ISIS. According to some sources (click) the general was on his way on a diplomatic mission. Send by the Iraqi government on a Trump-Pompeo missive.

In my opinion judges should be the ones who decide if someone is innocent or not. Presidents should behave presidential and not act as judge, jury and executioner. 

But it seems the USA and its allies have decided the world no longer needs the UN, international treaties, consultation with allies, a list with human rights, an international court of justice or even judges for that matter. So what to do with all the money that will be saved if we just cancel silly things like 'rights', 'rules' and 'law'? Buy more bombs and drones? Buy more influence? Buy more politicians?

In the meantime stockmarket prices have gone down and oil prices have gone up while weapons manufacturers (click) went to sleep smiling after right the moment word of the murder got out. 'Well, things happen. And if they strike back, they will.', to quote an American President.

Want to read (more of) my short stories? My author page: Terrence Weijnschenk at Amazon