PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[EvilBiker]

<cauterisation of irrelevant word salad>

So, could I be intuitive and analytical instead of psychic? Possibly, but although a massive die-off in the next few years is seen as possible due to calamitous events such an asteroid strikes, a major die-off due to a pandemic is thought to be preventable by modern medicine.

Well, judging from your posts, you come across as neither intuitive nor analytical, and psychics in general (and especially on this forum) are held in extremely low regard.

Nice fringe reset and simultaneous shark jump. I eagerly look forward to your next thrilling and insightful personal anecdote with bated breath, wherein you describe your neverending and thankless battle against the evils of "EMF", the corrupt lawyers and the NWO-controlled Telcos, armed only with Tarot cards, aluminium foil and a bad Schottky diode circuit.

Not.

 

[abaddon]

Metrics. I think of a judge who said "I cannot define porn but I know it when I see it". I doubt there are polls accurate enough to put numbers to such a social change. The polls cannot even get voting trends correct. The media will, however, be abuzz with stories. It will be hard to miss.

1964 Supreme Court obscenity case (Jacobellis v. Ohio) Associate Justice Potter Stewart wrote that “hard-core pornography” is hard to define but “I know it when I see it.”

So what? Once long ago womens ankles were porn. Social mores change over time.

https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
Population growth is still fast: Every year 140 million are born and 58 million die – the difference is the number of people that we add to the world population in a year: 82 million.

It is interesting to note that in order for a die-off to begin to be noticed then the world needs to see about 160 million a year die.

Or the birth rate fall.

That number is huge. If one looks at the graph of expected population on that site the annual growth has been declining from a peak in 1968 and the decline is accelerating. But that gives 10.9 billion people in 2100. The graphs are quite smoothed. No bumps for 1918 Flu or the WWs.

Still sustainable numbers for the planet. Higher than that and resource scarcity will reduce population without any god required. What use is your god? For anything?

Of course the one thing that will mitigate this is the empowerment of women. Give them control over their reproduction. Give them control over their education. That situation will self correct by bringing the natural rate of birth below the natural rate of death. It won't be the apocaplypse you obviously long for.

Yet here you are knowing what you could constructively support to increase our viability as a species and what do you do? You faff around with dodgy equipment, testing dodgy claims about...YOU.

If God wants a rapid die-off it will apocalyptic. Now science is not predicting that. So if is happens, I would say God's message to me was not quite "ordinary" and in the realm of expectations. When one deals with the numbers, the future is unsettling if I am correct. One might even find a few skeptics re-thinking their skepticism.

I just suggested a solution that is known to be effective and which humanity could easily achieve. What are you prepared to do about it?

I do not know how the "scientists" predict the population growth in the site I referenced. Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 book predicted massive famine. It was so influential it changed a number of things some of which nullified his predictions. He does not call them predictions - he calls them possible scenarios. One effect was a massive change in crop yields. The other was the slow-down in births.

Births are slowing down. Plenty of countries are well below even replacement rates. Tell me, what do all of those countries have in common?

Here is my thinking. Think of a Petri dish.

http://simplicitycollective.com/earth-as-a-petri-dish-the-problem-of-growth
I think everyone who casually dismisses the limits to growth perspective should be given a Petri dish with a swab of bacteria and watch as the colony grows until it consumes all the available nutrients or is poisoned by its own waste. In that light, I ask you to imagine a world of seven billion people, trending towards eleven billion people, all aspiring to the Western way of life, on our one and only planet, and consider for a moment whether the first limits to growth theorist, Thomas Malthus, who is often ridiculed, may yet have the last, tragic laugh.

Think about that. If true, then everyone is aspiring to the western way which entails having less progeny, not more. Is that good or bad for population levels, do you think?

I highlight the poisoning by toxins. In this scenario there is enough nutrients but the entire colony dies off - becomes extinct. We are producing toxins (including EMFs) at a very high rate. Their effect is slow and lags. It is better to have a massive die-off that scares humankind into action.

Better for whom? You? Or the victims? This is the creepy part of this whole line of argument. You are not predicting it, you appear to actually want it.

There is another effect of the toxins which I do not think has been taken into account. Peak toxins, where the effect accelerates and the breakdown of society feeds into this cycle. We could see sudden and quick drop rather than the slow rolling curve predicted.

Toxins? Peak toxins? Acceleration? Breakdown of society? Slow rolling curve predicted?

WTAF?

How many unevidenced calims can you insert?

There are many aspects of modern society that are seriously out of balance. Finance is a major one. Printing money and zero interest rates and a never-ending stock boom are symptoms of serious illness. The correction could be disastrous but kicking the can down the road is even more so.

Are you seriously suggesting you want to let them all die now?

So, could I be intuitive and analytical instead of psychic? Possibly,

Or you could be none of the above.

but although a massive die-off in the next few years is seen as possible due to calamitous events such an asteroid strikes, a major die-off due to a pandemic is thought to be preventable by modern medicine.

False.

 

[JayUtah]

Metrics. I think of a judge who said "I cannot define porn but I know it when I see it".

Cute, but irrelevant. There are most certainly legal definitions of pornography, and those who are convicted under any statute the definition applies to don't get to weasel out of it by citing Justice Stewart. Just because things are often difficult to pin down doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to try. You're even more on the hook to specify how we will know something if you're going to claim you prophesied it. The biggest scam "prophets" pull is making vague predictions and then announcing that some inevitable occurrence has satisfied it.

Only the very feeble-minded fall for this anymore.

I would say God's message to me was not quite "ordinary" and in the realm of expectations. When one deals with the numbers, the future is unsettling if I am correct.

The future can be unsettling whether gods exist or not. When your predictions fail the specificity test, you don't get to glom onto the endless stream of misfortunate that is life on Earth and pretend you're special because you noticed it.

One might even find a few skeptics re-thinking their skepticism.

Not without the evidence that you're unwilling to collect and provide. Is besting the skeptics really why you're here?

Seriously, you need to produce astounding results in order to convince us you're a prophet. Remember when we went through the various statistical models for the now-abandoned wifi experiment? Remember how high you had to score in order to beat out chance? That's still the same sort of convincing data we need from you in order to agree that you are a prophet. Gee, I maybe kinda got one right, and I'm going to ignore all the wrong parts, isn't convincing.

We are producing toxins (including EMFs)...

No. Electromagnetic field energy is not a "toxin." You try to pretend you know what you're talking about, but all you're doing is regurgitating the pseudoscientific polemics of the environmental and luddite movements. Yes, this is the part where you bluff, get caught, and then try to say that everyone's attacking you personally.

There are many aspects of modern society that are seriously out of balance.

Noticing that doesn't make you a prophet. Or even especially astute. You basically just have to not live in a cave to be able to cite injustice and inequality in the world.

So, could I be intuitive and analytical instead of psychic? Possibly...

Or you could be merely normal. You need to start considering possibilities that don't all boil down to you being able to lord something over everyone else. I'm sorry, but you're just not all that.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, judging from your posts, you come across as neither intuitive nor analytical...

I'm going to quibble slightly. To me he comes across as little more than intuitive, and not in the good way. Instead of finding out how things actually are, he seems to be simply applying his uninformed intuition to determine how he thinks they should be. And a departure from that, in his argument, is to be attributed to the nefarious influence of others.

 

[catsmate]

EHT told the FCC what the public wants:

Bollocks. EHT tells the FCC what a handful of cranks want.

 

[catsmate]

It was only when Trump ACTUALLY won the election that people thought it possible.

You're lying, again.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm going to quibble slightly. To me he comes across as little more than intuitive, and not in the good way. Instead of finding out how things actually are, he seems to be simply applying his uninformed intuition to determine how he thinks they should be.

That's exactly it, and it's something I've observed with pretty much every believer in the supernatural/paranormal with whom I've debated over the years. If their intuition is telling them something, then no amount of objective scientific evidence will ever convince them otherwise. You see it with physics cranks too - relativity is counterintuitive, therefore it must be wrong. That their intuition could be wrong (e.g. when assessing the likelihood of coincidences occurring) is something some people just don't seem to be able to accept.

 

[JayUtah]

I think it's bigger than just believers in the supernatural. Fringe theorization and argumentation is, broadly considered, a shortcut to the appearance of erudition and greatness.

UFO enthusiasts want to believe they know the secret that is too hot to be generally disclosed. There's a payoff to knowing the "secret," of course. But there is an additional payoff in believing that one is mentally mature enough to handle the reality of alien visitation that must be concealed from everyone else.

Moon hoax theorists want to believe they've intuitively understood so much more about space engineering, photography, etc. than the general public. So they can see through the cover story. Ditto, in a similar way, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Alternative medicine practitioners want to believe they are natural healers, while licensed medical doctors have to use chemicals and "science" to achieve only a modest success.

And we can go on and on. I believe most fringe argumentation is aimed at narcissism, at ego reinforcement. The claimants want to be the hero of the world they've created around themselves. And that means they have to believe their intuition is automatically so much more valuable than anyone else's knowledge and experience. They have to build that world according to the knowledge they already possess.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You're lying, again.

Not lying. Mistaken. It was the Main Stream Media who were stunned when Trump won. Based on their stories one could say it was "people". I take it you thought Trump was a shoe-in?

 

[PartSkeptic]

I'm going to quibble slightly. To me he comes across as little more than intuitive, and not in the good way. Instead of finding out how things actually are, he seems to be simply applying his uninformed intuition to determine how he thinks they should be. And a departure from that, in his argument, is to be attributed to the nefarious influence of others.

I have a long list of achievements. There were a number that people thought impossible. How do you explain that? Some of these required an in-depth understanding of science principles. Others required an understanding of where an emerging technology was going. Others were based on an understanding of economics and business and people.

Is it your opinion that these plain statements of fact are narcissistic, thus implying they are false delusions? Your opinion does not negate facts.

Your statements are nothing more than false conjecture.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Then the metric you are proposing is the extent to which the "media is abuzz with stories". But the media is abuzz with stories about all sorts of things all the time. What stories do you expect the media to be abuzz with? How many such stories are there currently, and what percentage increase in such stories are you predicting? How do you propose to count them, in order to demonstrate that the number has increased as you predicted?

Just this year we had a media frenzy about impeaching Trump, then a Covid-19 frenzy and now a BLM frenzy.

I think that stories of politician and business making honest and transparent attempt to be moral and uplift the peoples of the world will make news. Not just the PR of being a "philanthropist" which very few actually are.

What about the Covid "Long Haulers"? The ones suffering symptoms that are similar to EHS? The virus has gone from their system but new symptoms persist. I am of the opinion that cell phone microwaves may be to blame. It would be interesting to take some of these people to a no-EMF are for a week or two.

 

[PartSkeptic]

1(snip)

Or the birth rate fall.

(snip)

Births are slowing down. Plenty of countries are well below even replacement rates. Tell me, what do all of those countries have in common?

(snip).

Birth rates are falling. Fertility is falling. I think toxins and EMFs are partly to blame.

However, infant mortality will probably rise as the global infrastructure crumbles.

Delivery of medicines have become problematic. So have vaccination programs. Our modern world is currently too fragile in the interconnectedness. There is no "fat" in the supply chain. No reserves. Too little local production.

Mortality will probably increase.

Any other "fixes" do not force humankind to examine what it being done wrong and work on fixing it. The slow and persistent spread of Covid and the side-effects are forcing people to re-examine values and ways fo doing things.

 

[Pixel42]

Just this year we had a media frenzy about impeaching Trump, then a Covid-19 frenzy and now a BLM frenzy.

I think that stories of politician and business making honest and transparent attempt to be moral and uplift the peoples of the world will make news. Not just the PR of being a "philanthropist" which very few actually are.

When we first started discussing the wifi test you responded to a reminder from me of how such tests are made scientifically meaningful by assuring me you knew the drill. Since then you have repeatedly insisted you don't need to eliminate the effect of your cognitive biases to reach a reliable conclusion based on observation alone, and now here you are, still proposing "you'll know it when you see it" as the success criteria for a prediction. These are the most fundamental mistakes you could be making. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the scientific method can only shake their heads in horror. Claims of tremendous achievements and an "in-depth understanding of science principles" are unlikely to be given credence when placed next to this kind of wilful ignorance.

What about the Covid "Long Haulers"?

Coincidentally the subject of today's Guardian science weekly podcast. Why not listen to it, as I just did, and read up about the subject, rather than wildly speculating based on your unsupported beliefs?

 

[abaddon]

Birth rates are falling. Fertility is falling. I think toxins and EMFs are partly to blame.

Most of that is due to the education and empowerment of women. How many western women are willing to be simple baby factories? Sure, it is trivially easy to find examples, you just will not find many of them. In any event, education and empowerment of women can be DEMONSTRATED to reduce birth rates. One might be moved to wonder why you do not place your efforts there instead of chasing a ghost in the machine.

You think toxins and EMFs are causitive. You have once again failed to provide ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.

But let us just suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are correct, and further suppose that these "toxins" and EMFs were banned. Then the birth rate in your model would INCREASE. dramatically, further hastening the demise of the human race.

Perhaps you are unaware of it, but what you are putting your energy into is hastening that process, not stopping it or even slowing it.

It appears to be your actual goal.

However, infant mortality will probably rise as the global infrastructure crumbles.

Why would the global infrastructure crumble? You seem to be unable to provide any evidence that this is happening.

Delivery of medicines have become problematic.

On planet sausage, perhaps. For example, you seem to obtain any medication you want with ease. Or so you claim.

So have vaccination programs. Our modern world is currently too fragile in the interconnectedness. There is no "fat" in the supply chain. No reserves. Too little local production.

It's a lot more robust than it was when we eliminated smallpox. How do you explain that?

Mortality will probably increase.

Nice post-diction that is perfectly bloody obvious.

Mortality increased because of covid, Spanish Flu, WW1, WW2, etc.

Yet here we are.

Any other "fixes" do not force humankind to examine what it being done wrong and work on fixing it. The slow and persistent spread of Covid and the side-effects are forcing people to re-examine values and ways fo doing things.

But you want that to happen. Why are you complaining?

 

[Rincewind]

I have a long list of achievements. There were a number that people thought impossible. How do you explain that? Some of these required an in-depth understanding of science principles. Others required an understanding of where an emerging technology was going. Others were based on an understanding of economics and business and people.

Is it your opinion that these plain statements of fact are narcissistic, thus implying they are false delusions? Your opinion does not negate facts.

Your statements are nothing more than false conjecture.

And your statements are nothing more than anecdotes.

 

[JayUtah]

I have a long list of achievements.

You have a long list of claims to superiority in a number of disciplines, and reciting them is a major part of every argument you've ever made on this forum. As is playing the victim when they are not immediately believed. You may claim, for example, to be an expert scientist, and thus to be able to discern good science from bad. But you can't act like one when needed. And yes, we can tell. Your approach is exactly what we would expect from a profoundly biased layman. So your claim is simply not credible.

Is it your opinion that these plain statements of fact are narcissistic...

Yes. And they are unevidenced allegations, not statements of fact. We've undertaken an exercise to determine whether they are factual. You base your arguments on claims of knowledge and expertise, peppered with occasional dumps of irrelevant recitations obviously cribbed from elsewhere. When your claims are tested here, you fail, or assiduously avoid the test. Then you complain loudly that you're being personally attacked. When others with clearly better understanding than you try to set the record straight, you decry them as ignorant and even go so far as to try to stuff ignorant or absurd arguments of your own manufacture into their mouths to try to reinforce that impression. That's what I would consider the essence of an argument based on narcissism. You're unable to consider the proposition that you may not be the smartest guy in the room, regardless of what's being discussed.

...thus implying they are false delusions? Your opinion does not negate facts.

"Fadts" which you cannot substantiate when required, hence are properly rejected. I'm not implying anything beyond that, so stop straw-manning. I have no way of knowing whether you actually believe your claims, or whether you're just trying to get others to believe them.

Your statements are nothing more than false conjecture.

Except, of course, for the evidence that litters this thread. My conclusion may, of course, turn out to be wrong. But it is far from lacking evidence.

 

[EHocking]

I have a long list of achievements. There were a number that people thought impossible. How do you explain that? Some of these required an in-depth understanding of science principles. Others required an understanding of where an emerging technology was going. Others were based on an understanding of economics and business and people.[... and yet, with all this scientific and technical genius you are unable to buy the correct power source for your laptop.

Is it your opinion that these plain statements of fact are narcissistic, thus implying they are false delusions? Your opinion does not negate facts.

Ironically, neither does your opinion.

Your statements are nothing more than false conjecture.

First: read back all of the outlandish claims in your posts.
Second : read that last line out loud

 

[Pixel42]

First: read back all of the outlandish claims in your posts.
Second : read that last line out loud

First "feel free to cherry pick what suits your beliefs", then "Do you not realize that you jump to bad conclusions because of your bias?", now "Your statements are nothing more than false conjecture". I'm beginning to wonder if the man even has a sense of irony.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)

Coincidentally the subject of today's Guardian science weekly podcast. Why not listen to it, as I just did, and read up about the subject, rather than wildly speculating based on your unsupported beliefs?

What you have posted is an anecdote of scientists musing in perplexity.

Basically is says. Science does not know and a lot more research is required.
"Early days" and "just don't know yet" and "No evidence yet".
The phrases "a strange virus" and " a deceitful virus" are used multiple times.

Thanks for the reference. It supports my hypothesis.

The reason it support my hypothesis is that I have stated that my experience is that EMFs amplify any underlying illness that would ordinarily be unnoticeable or minor.

The fungus and the ciprofloxin probably did nerve damage in my case, and the EMFs are amplifying that. Covid-19 apparently does do some nerve damage, and damage to other organs. EMFs would amplify the damage - and has the potential to make the damage worse.

Again I say, put the sufferes in an EMF free zone for two weeks. Will not be done because the industry will not let it happen. My advice to friends and family includes reducing their EMF exposure should they get the virus. My wife and I are hearing of more cases here in SA.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)

On planet sausage, perhaps. For example, you seem to obtain any medication you want with ease. Or so you claim.

It's a lot more robust than it was when we eliminated smallpox. How do you explain that?

(snip)

Watch some news. HIV drugs are in short supply in some countries. Vaccinations in poor countries has dropped. The emphasis has shifted from preventing known diseases to preventing Covid-19. On your planet/world, the third world (poverty-stricken nations) does not exist, I suppose.