The Center for AI Safety, based in San Francisco, organised a letter in May – signed by dozens of experts – calling for leaders to work to “reduce societal-scale risks from AI”.
But we’ve previously had good press about AI – for example, saying that it could could be essential in tackling climate change. What if the emergence of AI could be a positive thing? Might it not offer alternative ideas, or even solutions, to some of our greatest problems?
Could an AI help to inform better discussion, able to openly and easily provide supporting evidence (or not) for both sides of a debate to assist in moving towards a solution that everyone can accept as logical?
Surely AI could review the vast accumulation of scientific studies and identify problems – which ones suffer from bias, or faulty premises, or other issues with methodology, therefore should be ignored? In other words, could it perhaps throw light onto areas which can be difficult – and slow – for humans to research?
Of course, there could be issues – because a true artificial intelligence might not be willing to follow the narrative.
What if our governments, and our elites, are afraid of AI because they are worried about losing control of the narrative?
Something to think about – and, of course, make up your own mind.
Yesterday Zero Hedge published a post about problems withdrawing cash from the bank. What will you say if your bank challenges you about why you’re withdrawing – or transferring – your money?
Should your bank be allowed to question you about what you do with your own money? Or worse, to ask to see proof of that?
It’s one thing to try and help protect customers from fraud, but this seems to be more. Read more here.
This is a short post with a round up of a few things about Covid – mostly overlooked by mainstream media.
Israeli study showed that natural immunity is better than covid shots – in 2021
… and that “the risk of developing symptomatic covid was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times greater [than in those with acquired immunity].” At least the Israel National News reported it.
International Covid Summit
The ICS – which aims to have an uncensored space so that professionals can discuss their experiences – held a third summit on 4th May, this one at the EU parliament. You can watch video of the first session here on YouTube and part 2 here. There is an excellent introduction to this – and a copy of the agenda for the day – on Dr Robert Malone’s Substack.
It’s particularly worth listening to Dr David Martin’s speech (in the first session, starting at around 11 mins 55 seconds). Some pretty shocking stuff.
Florida asks CDC & FDA important questions
Dr Joseph Lapado, the Surgeon General of Florida, wrote to the CDC and FDA asking them for a number of important things regarding mRNA vaccines, including reporting publicly why randomised clinical trials weren’t required prior to approval of the mRNA boosters, and disclosing information about adverse events.
Igor Chudov wrote about this in his newsletter of 11th May – you can read the full text of the letter there.
Thanks for reading. As always, make up your own mind.
At WSIW we’re all about looking at the facts, analysing the probability of something being true, and making up your own mind. This week, A Midwestern Doctor wrote two excellent articles on Substack which are well worth reading when you have a bit of time.
These are thoughtful pieces that delve into essential aspects of thinking critically, including the need to consider all the possible reasons for an issue, not just the most obvious theory; the need to consider the probability of something being true; and the modern problem of having a deluge of information.
The Climate is Changing – So Should We poster (photo from Pexels by Markus Spiske)
The human race seems to be marching – or possibly racing – towards an apocalyptic climate disaster, right? You’d certainly think so from the mainstream media, not to mention Greta Thunberg and protest groups like XR – their website says “Our world is in crisis. Life itself is under threat.” According to the media, everyone on the planet agrees, bar a few nasty (and nutty) climate change sceptics.
As with most things, it’s a bad idea to simply believe everything you hear about climate change in the mainstream media – especially when it’s painted as black-or-white or overly simplistic. But where to find some information that isn’t just following the main narrative?
We were recently recommended the Watts Up With That? (WUWT) website, which Wikipedia calls “a blog promoting climate change denial”.
The site responds to mainstream media articles about climate issues. For example, an article in the Guardian last week (5th May 2023) asserted that extreme temperatures are rising faster than climate models, particularly citing a heatwave across Spain and Portugal. In response, a post on wattsupwiththat.com reviews the Guardian article and points out some contradictory facts, including a recent study in the Lancet that showed more people die from cold than heat in Spain.
As well as daily articles, the site has a bunch of reference pages with charts, for example giving global temperature. They also review climate science books. One of the most useful features is a list of bookmarks linking to other useful sites and articles.
WUWT seems very well written, and interestingly, its author Anthony Watts (who has a science and blogging background) was not a climate sceptic until the mid-1990s. We think it’s definitely worth a look.
WUWT links to Everything Climate for a variety of information on “the data and the theories” regarding climate change and “claimed dangers”, although most of the pieces here seem to be undated, which is a bit unhelpful.
Jennifer Marohasy’s blog is also worth reading – I found her via a link from WUWT – and her information about coral reefs is extremely interesting.
If you’re interested in climate-sceptic writing, you could consider reading Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) which is available on Kindle Unlimited. (Disclaimer: we haven’t read it yet.)
And for balance, here are some sites with a more mainstream point of view:
The IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – is the United Nations (UN) body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change. You can find all its reports on the website.
The climate area of NASA’s site has a piece on global warming versus climate change, and a section on scientific consensus which says that “evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and it’s ocean basins”. They do note later on the page that “… climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities”. (Those are my italics for emphasis.)
Yale Climate Connections has a list of resources to “help you understand the key facts about human-caused climate change”.
Skeptical Science says it’s “getting skeptical about global warming skepticism” and the site includes a handy guide to skepticism.
Happy researching, and as always – make up your own mind.
The WHO is working on introducing a new Pandemic Preparedness Treaty. You can read the UK parliament’s research briefing – it all sounds very well-meaning.
However, some people are worried about the treaty goes too far and will take away our sovereign rights, i.e. the UK’s ability to act locally, control its own response and work in the best way for its citizens (yes, that’s us).
The proposed treaty, and the associated amendments to the International Health Regulations, would give away control of public health response to the WHO, an unelected international body. The WHO is partly funded by the UK, and is not controlled by anyone – however it is vulnerable to influence.
For example, in 2020-21 the WHO’s second largest contributor was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ($751 million). Its sixth largest contributor was the GAVI Alliance ($432 million). Given this large amount of funding from vaccine-focused organisations, at minimum the WHO is likely to lean heavily towards vaccination as a pandemic solution.
The constant barrage of “it’s safe and effective” and “get the jab to protect others” was bad enough with sars-cov-2. What happens if the WHO says to the UK, “you MUST vaccinate 85% of your population”? What happens if it says, “all your children MUST be vaccinated”?
Concerns have been cited by many in the UK, including the group UsForThem which campaigns for children’s wellbeing. In their Substack of 25th March 2023 they detailed their concerns. You can access and download their full briefing paper from the link.
Of particular concern are the proposed amendments to the wording of the International Health Regulations. Perhaps the most concerning is the proposed change to Article 3 (1) Principles. The current text reads: “The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” However, the proposed amendment will change this to, “The implementation of these Regulations shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.” References to respect for our dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are completely deleted.
In the UK, over 156,000 people signed the petition “Do not sign any WHO Pandemic Treaty unless it is approved via public referendum”. In November 2022 the government’s official response said that “COVID-19 has demonstrated that no-one is safe until we are all safe” and that “the Government does not consider a referendum is necessary, appropriate or in keeping with precedent for such an agreement.”
Petitions with over 100,000 signatures are considered for debate in parliament, and this issue was debated on 17th April – you can watch the debate on YouTube and read the transcript here.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to be deeply concerned about this issue. It’s simple: we should not surrender our sovereign control in the aid of international cooperation. We are capable of cooperation without this straightjacket of a treaty, without a set of rules that strip away individual rights.
We should not surrender our national sovereignty, nor our individual rights and freedoms, to anyone.
It is generally acknowledged that we cannot keep using fossil fuels for ever – we need alternative energy sources, especially as we approach (or perhaps have already reached) peak oil. And governments worldwide are determined to march us towards Net Zero. However, while there seems to be plenty of encouragement to invest in wind power, there are those who think that wind is definitely not the answer.
A recent Zero Hedge article discussed Professor Wade Allison’s paper that says wind power is failing on every count, so we thought we’d look into wind power in some more detail.
How do wind turbines work?
As well as the blades, a turbine includes a generator, gearbox and speed brakes. It’s a complex system. Wind turns the propeller-like blades of a turbine around a rotor, which spins a generator, which creates electricity. The US Department of Energy has information on this: https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/how-do-wind-turbines-work
The most visible parts are the blades, which are manufactured using a composite mix of glass, carbon fibre, and plastic. This unique material gives the blades the strength and durability to do their job.
Generating rubbish?
A big issue is that at the moment, the blades can’t be recycled, although some people are reusing them. The World Economic Forum concedes that it’s a problem: “… disposing of retired turbine blades has become a headache for the renewable energy industry. They’re made of materials that can’t easily be recycled.”
However, the world’s first recyclable wind turbine blade has now been produced, so perhaps future builds might be more environmentally friendly.
What else do you need to install a wind turbine?
As well as manufacturing and transporting the turbine, you can’t just plonk it down anywhere. The location needs to be suitably windy (but preferably not too windy) and you have to prepare the site. Utility Smarts says that the typical base of a 1 MW turbine is around 15 metres in diameter, and 1.5 to 3.5 metres deep, so using around 130-240 cubic metres of concrete and potentially 150 metric tons of steel. Then of course you need to have roads in place to physically move the huge turbines to the site – so those might need to be built too.
So how much do turbines cost?
Semprius, a company specialising in renewable energy, estimates the total cost (in US dollars) of an average turbine as $2.5 to $4 million; the most powerful 12 MW turbines can cost up to $400 million to manufacture and install. That’s a lot of money for something that will only last 20 to 30 years. They say that:
“Turbines that are properly maintained and occasionally have their parts replaced will last a full 25 to 30 years. But if the operators fall behind on maintenance, the turbines may face an early death. This is especially true for wind farms in harsh environments, such as those out at sea (whose replacement is much costlier, due to their geography).”
Are turbines bad for wildlife?
There has been a lot of concern regarding birds being killed by wind turbines, particularly apex predators like eagles and hawks. A 2022 article on Daily Sceptic was extremely concerned about bats being killed by onshore turbines, and James Delingpole has long been an opponent – in this article from ten years ago he describes them as “bat chomping and bird slicing”.
As well as flying creatures being killed directly by colliding with turbine blades, they can be affected by direct habitat loss, disturbance and displacement. However, according to its website the RSPB seems fairly unperturbed by this and their website says they work with developers to install wind farms responsibly. In the US, American Bird Conservancy takes a dimmer view and says turbines are a threat to birds; they too work with developers to try to minimise impact on wildlife.
… and bad for humans?
There’s an argument that quality of life is reduced by being in proximity to turbines – perhaps they seem okay off in the distance, but nobody really wants to live right next door to massive steel objects, no matter how much energy is produced.
There have been lots of reports of people struggling with health issues caused by the sound of the blades, usually described as a low-frequency hum. These reports are usually dismissed, although it’s worth pointing out that as everybody is unique, some people could be badly affected even if most have no problems. The turbines not only produce sound but also affect air pressure, so some people may be more sensitive to air pressure changes, resulting in discomfort or illness.
Show me the money?
Somebody must be making lots of money from wind turbines, right? Earlier this month the UK government recently announced £205 million for British renewables. In September 2021 the UK government announced a “milestone subsidy scheme” of £265 million for renewables, including £200 million for offshore wind farms. Despite some comments in the press about the cost of offshore wind power falling in recent years, it seems that wind farms continue to be heavily subsidised.
A May 2018 article from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) noted that the International Energy Agency (IEA) had calculated that in 2016 subsidies for renewable energy technologies amounted to US$140 billion. They also said that fossil fuels received about US$260 billion in the same period, although fossil fuel subsidies had fallen about 15% from the previous year.
The ONS says that wind power is one of the largest sources of renewable electricity in the UK and is expected to continue to grow as we head towards the target of “Net Zero”. It says that the UK generated 75,610 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity from both offshore and onshore wind in 2020 – and that “the offshore and onshore wind sectors generated almost £6 billion in turnover in 2019.” Yet in November 2022 the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) was asking why “unsubsidised” wind farms are getting constraint payments – payments to reduce their output. The REF says that the cost to consumers totals well over £1 billion since the payments began in 2010.
So – positive or negative?
Are turbines a good source of renewable energy, and worth investing in to improve them? Or should they be binned as a waste of time? What do you think? Professor Allison’s paper is worth reading (link below).
The Bad Cattitude newsletter writes that it’s “bank crisis groundhog day” – this is well worth a read. A quote from which possibly sums things up:
the simple fact is that banking is largely opaque. we could sit down with every piece of public and regulatory data about deutche bank and spend a month going over it and still wind up with what ultimately amounts to a black box bet on the soundness and hedging of a derivatives portfolio nearly 3 orders of magnitude larger than their total equity.
Richard Vobes interviewed Justin Walker (co-founder of HARE – the Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology) on his YouTube channel yesterday – the episode is called Stop the Collapse! Justin tells some very interesting stories, and suggests that some people want a financial collapse, as an excuse to bring in CDBCs (central bank digital currencies).
If CDBCs are brought in, governments and banks will be able to track every single transaction. Not only will there be no privacy, but the potential (likely?) next step is to use the CDBC to control you. For example, you might have already used up your budget for petrol for the month, so you would not be allowed to buy any more fuel. Perhaps you won’t be allowed to buy meat, if the government decides that you shouldn’t. Perhaps you will only be allowed to purchase certain things from “authorised suppliers”.
There’s also a very real possibility that if you do something you don’t like – perhaps you speak up against a pro-vaccination narrative, or drop litter – the CDBC system will be used to punish you. This already happens in China – social credit scores have prevented people from using their money to buy plane or train tickets.
There’s a good article which goes into the good, the bad and the ugly about CDBCs on crunchbase.com.
Is there anything we can do about this? To fight back against CDBCs, the best thing is to use cash as much as possible – the more cash is being used, the harder it is for the government to bring in a CDBC to replace it. Try to use #CashEveryDay.
