A New Theory of Time - Lee Smolin
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ค. 2013
- Is it possible that time is real, and that the laws of physics are not fixed? Lee Smolin, A C Grayling, Gillian Tett, and Bronwen Maddox explore the implications of such a profound re-think of the natural and social sciences, and consider how it might impact the way we think about surviving the future.
Listen to the podcast of the full event including audience Q&A: www.thersa.org/__data/assets/f...
Follow the RSA on Twitter: / thersaorg
Like the RSA on Facebook: / thersaorg
Our events are made possible with the support of our Fellowship. Support us by donating or applying to become a Fellow.
Donate: www.thersa.org/support-the-rsa
Become a Fellow: www.thersa.org/fellowship/apply
![[Full] อังคารคลุมโปง Close Up EP.49 | คนใกล้ผีคนที่ 49 : หมอฉุกเฉิน “หมอบอส” (Thai Sub)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dKPUaX7UxMQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I really respect Lee Smolin, he's one of the most unique and insightful minds in theoretical and philosophical physics.
I once knew a physicist that was working on the idea that time is our awareness of the expansion of space. He passed away before publishing anything. I didn't understand his explanations, but I remember him saying that Einsteins space time is incomplete. That in fact it's "expanding space time". Space and time are different sides of the same thing because space is expanding and creates "quantum holes" which must be filled. The holes being filled created by space expanding is what we feel as time because these "quantum holes" allow us to go from point A to point B in space, or some such craziness that I don't understand. I also remember him saying something about if space didn't expand we could not travel through it. It would be like a solid and there could be no motion, energy or time. He claimed to have the math, but it sounds crazy to me.
Sounds crazy to me also. Maybe you're not explaining it correct.
You're describing what I was thinking about last week almost exactly, while considering the relationship between the expansion of space and the speed of light. The idea might be a waste of time, but I was surprised to see someone else write about it so soon after it just kind of came to me as a curious revelation.
Interesting!
Good point, it got me thinking. I wonder if those "quantum holes" are some how linked to the Laws of Thermodynamics, in respect of entropy which is another way of looking at time. It is interesting that one of the problems of physics in general, was to satisfactorily unify the laws - Unified Field Theory, as Relativity is a concept of the "very big" compared to Quantum Mechanics of the "very small". It is sad that the physicist you knew passed away. He might have been onto something.
It took me two hours to sit through this 24 minute video.
Channel your mind so it won't be boring but rather interesting
You're lucky. I fell asleep for 3 hours and it was still running!
😭😭😭
"paradigm shift in cosmology"..... the entertwining of politics/social theory and physics strikes me as one of the most dangerous notions possible.
The term 'paradigm shift' originated in reference to philosophy by Kuhn. In this case Smolin seems to be using that context of the word rather than the political sense.
Exactly. Especially given the advent of AI and Nanotechnology.
Robin Blankenship
Yes. I sense a terrified fellow seeking power through social engineering.
I don’t perceive science here, but rather social engineering.
th-cam.com/video/0JQ1ITqLbKE/w-d-xo.html (please watch this)
my favourite thing in the world is to smoke a spliff and watcvh a lee smolin video. Mind=blown. Man.
I see time as a sequence of states that make it appear to our minds as time.
...and that is why rewinding of time is not possible.
If motion is frozen(all vectors of forces still in force) then 'time' also freezes.
Thus time is a perception not an entity. Time is absolute.
but he says moment to moment!?
How much we want something to be true has no bearing on whether it actually is true.
Do you want that to be true?
@@malcolmdean2303 lol - very clever !
But ‘truth’ is ellusive. e.g. Consider the statement ‘the fastest kangaroo in australia yesterday hopped exactly 20.17 m/s.’ This is either ‘true’ or ‘false’. but you can never prove which. In such cases (MOST CASES) any assumption one makes about the truth of a statement has tremendous social context.
I have no idea what relevance this has. Consider the statement "I will be a friendly person". If I want it to be true, it is much more likely to be true than if I want to be unfriendly. I want to be the first person to make nonstop flight across the Atlantic. Darn, you Charles Lindbergh.
@@jameseames4754 You can find the meaning of "is" in any dictionary.
It felt Lee has touched on what is newly emerging as - The Arrow of Energy:
"No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all energy systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future."
Long ago I read some thing like this in a Sc Am article "Can Time Go Backwards": Time goes on you say, oh no! Time stays on, we go!!
Dr. Smolin, like a symphony conductor, disciplines his orchestra of ideas to a cresendo but he forgot his conductor baton and he should have one to occupy his left hand. Regardless, his revelation is music to my ears. The symphony remains unfinished but with agency and novelty we face the danger and opportunity of today's red flag world with a modicum of encouragement. The future is not fixed, we have agency, creativity and force. We find courage in Dr. Smolin's resolve that we have agency over the emergent future, we can impact experience, one person makes a difference. Timeless truth mutates and reverses into the truth of evolution in time. It may be an evolving pattern set of fractal developments expanding previous patterns and rolling out constant variation in an expanding and changing reality. My intuition is that even our precious self is a process, a changing, moving fountain of waves, continually transcending past structure. Thank you Dr. Smolin!
His left hand is fully occupied painting pictures.
@@desdoyle7839 Ah yes, more visual than sonic. Good call!
And very annoying.
Good tip. I'll be doing this in the future.
I like how the other guy summarized it all at the end for us laymen
I enjoyed reading your book "A Time Reborn"
Yes yes! "we all need to learn from each other"
What I find refreshing about this new theory is it offers hope. The current mainstream model, that everything already exists ultimately leads to the absurd notion that everything is already fixed in place, which philosophically is fatalism. Fatalism really has no place for God or free will. The universe is living. Quantum mechanics shows us this. Bravo!
I couldn't stop watching his hand displaying audio spikes
Here's a homework assignment for Bob Greene: (1) Determine where in the Galaxy our planet was 15 years ago, relative to its position at present; (2) point SETI equipment in that direction; and (3) listen for radio transmissions dating from Dec. 31, 1999 or thenabouts. If he receives such and verifies them as such, he might build a strong case for his belief that each moment in time exists eternally within Spacetime.
Very important and challenging questions. I don't have an opinion about his claims, but it's certainly fascinating.
The idea is that time is a construct of our consciousness should not be avoided because of fear. The idea has great implications yes but none that would affect us in our experience of our physical world because it exists for us in this existence and has great implications for us regardless of if time is just a limitation/ability of our consciousness. Our world and universe is ours regardless of if it has any implications for anyone else.
I have not read the book, but what I understood from this short introduction is not that Truths are transient, but rather that Truth evolves (i.e., grows) in the presence of time. An example is the idea that the laws of Newtonian physics are eternally true, yet the passage of time has revealed a contradictory set of atomic Truths - which are also eternal. More simply, in a relativistic universe a thing may at the same time be both infinitely large AND infinitely small, depending on your measuring reference. The passage of time reveals new measuring references - and therefore there can be no timeless truths.
The thuth about nature hasnt evolved but rather has our understanding of it as we (Einstein) found a model that would give more precise predictions and descriptions of the universe.
I believe this theory adresses the fabric of time and Reality itself by saying the concept of truth which exist within reality can only exist now because only now is reality
Whether predetermined or not, the future is only available to us when it is in the past.
Thank you - very helpful comment (5 years ago) I am just future past
@@220Phil In a way, yes. The problem, though, is the implication that the future happened. Since we never get to the future, it can’t be our past. It is the potential future that became our past.
I listened to this about 3 months ago and I got lost and abandoned it; here I am again and I just got the central tenant of his proposition which is around 12:35 in the video. For a lay-person that is very satisfying to grasp; mathematics is not sufficient in modelling reality and therefore has to make concessions one of which is that time, in the human-experience-sense is a fallacy. What makes this proposition even more interesting is the propensity for humans for: Dogma, and acceptance of Approximations or indeed complete exclusion, to make theories fit et. al.
please continue
My time theory of matter is an attempt at a deeper description of nature by thinking of an elementary particle not as a little point or a little loop of vibrating string but as a moment in time fluctuating at its ultimate extreme levels.
Khalid Masood
Elementary particles can move from A to B and immediately back to position A without violating the laws of physics. The problem is, at the macro level, the probability that all the extremely huge number of particles will move back to A at the same time is basically 0. Hence time only moves forward for us.
that explains why we don't see things "rewinding" or going backwards in time on the macro level, but it doesn't necessarily explain why we live or experience things moment-to-moment, which is the problem he was trying to tackle. if relativity proposes that time and space act as part of one continuum in the natural world, how come we are able to differentiate our "present" self from our past? why is it that we experience time as a narrative flow of events instead of existing as a simultaneous amalgamation of past, present, and future? how are we able to differentiate now from before? most people are content to say that we are physically constrained to view reality in this way, but he obviously wanted to peer deeper and have a fundamental understanding as to WHAT makes us view reality moment to moment.
Extraordinary lecture. He has nailed several concepts that indicate we are in an evolving universe. Time does appear to one of the few fundamentals. Consciousness is also a fundamental. Superb intellect.
Uncertain future - nature solved this problem very elegant. Nature maintains highest possible diversity at any given time. This ensures, regardless what the future holds, that existence continues. Unless we adapt this highest principle for our civilization - it's only a matter of time when we'll extinct.
You can measure time by rate of decay or entropy. The earth spinning around the sun is a measure of the force of gravity in a vacuum.
Exactly. I would add that time is real, immutable and unidirectional, a fundamental discreet element of natural law, buttressed by observable irreversible biological processes and measurable through observance of repetitive motions of objects in the universe, chemical processes, electrical reactance & capacitive decay etc. A guiding principle of logic: one cannot measure something (with repeatable, recordable, empirical demonstrable cross-referenceable results) and then turn around and claim that it does not exist. ⏳
Might the "now" moment be how decoherence is expressed in the time dimension of space-time? So, in space we experience solid matter (as opposed to the wave it emerged from) and in time we experience the "now". The implication would be that time is emergent from mass, not fundamental. Also, the arrow of time would therefore be the result of our continuously expanding universe, which in turn "stretches" all matter, which in turn generates a continuous flow of new "now" moments. Another implication of this way of thinking is that entropy is the result of our expanding universe.
A new theory of time = a new perspective of time(and one of countless perspective)
Every observation shows that laws and universal constants are constants across time and space.
About time!
Don’t confuse the concept of ‘no time’ with the concept of ‘no change’. The first requires one to replace ‘t’ in all physics with relations between the other variables ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’, ‘g’, ‘E’ etc etc. The same outcomes can result.
My view is that there are two types of time. 1. Periodic (clock)time which has at its base a circular argument which cannot be usefully extrapolated on beyond a certain technological point and is a social construct. 2. "Lived time" which encapsulates aging, memory, and history, which animals experience too. Other than that there is the present and a succession of the present. My present is someone else's history (maybe), Seemingly cosmology which contains any assumptions is merely the extrapolation on the effects of radiation encountering reflective surfaces.
Our understanding of physics as timeless resides in the brains of temporal human beings. Its the ancient misguided argument concerning determination--that if its all determined then I don't have to do anything. Well, try that and see how it goes.
Brilliant! This is called living in the Moment or "CIRCULAR TIME is the First Nations" way. Finally science is getting it! Enjoyed this and to those who are critical of the presenter, "you missed the point,". m
I want to know if the line I see has been put there--not by me-- in my last posting represents an underline--denoting emphasis as if to express interest in what I therein proposed--or a lineout--denoting disapproval.
It is counter intuitive, often it is used to denote something of value but to deny as sort of a quip. Springing a proposal that is either obvious or peculiar.
Could the mathematics of quantum mechanics represent the physics of ‘time’ as a geometrical process with classical physics representing processes over a period of time as in Newton’s differential equations? What we see and feel as ‘time’ is formed by the spontaneous absorption and emission of photon energy. In such a theory we would have an emergent future unfolding with each photon electron coupling or dipole moment. The wave-particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with! We are always in ‘the moment of now’ in the centre of our own reference frame as an interactive part of this process!
Concepts can, at best, create an imperfect mirror of experience.
The comforting concepts of entity and agency have been traditionally used to create man's conceptual universe. Since the symbol is not "that for which it stands", it is the usefulness of the pattern created by the concepts that matters more than the so-called objective truth of a concept. The relative merits of these patterns can be assessed by science. The Buddhists are right in that the only way to apprehend reality directly is "without thought-coverings" (without concepts).
Time is the measure of the difference from one awareness state to the next one , all things have been but we get concious about them by the time measure
The answer to the question " is there time when there is no activity?" will answer this question. Since we measure time by activity, time just a relative measure of one activity over the other. SO TIME DOES NOT EXIST.
He's up there yappin' - they're down there clappin'; Its all about presenting a "rock and roll- bums in seats" speculative entertainment performance package.
there are copies proves this, when I contacted many that time they had no reply, but lately became the owners of all these!
Is that waving of his hand temporal or timeless?
"Laws of nature evolving" see Rupert Sheldrake, already had this idea, Nature is habitual, not law like
Time t², ψ², c², e² and velocity Eₖ=½mv² geometrical similarity formed out of spherical symmetry
It's clear that there is some natural progression to the universe, which is the thing we're tempted to call time, but think of it by analogy with an ordered set: there is an infinite set composed of elements (states of the universe) whereby there is a self-referential relation (evolving) among elements. Timeless or temporal is a matter of perspective (the set as a whole vs. from an element of the set)
Time is the measurement of whatever sequential changes are occurring in the present. Smolin is saying in effect that everything evolves to change the present.
the present something that prevents the past and future from flying apart (quote one) or the present is something that prevents the past and future from coming apart at the seems (quote two)
I recently viewed Brian Greene's B-Theory of Time. In it, he claims that time does not flow moment by moment from the future through the present and into the past, but that each moment eternally exists in the universe around us as does space. For instance, a particular one occurring on the night of December 31, 1999. Now my question is this: If this is true, doesn't the audience think we could use an observatory computer to calculate the exact coordinates in the Milky Way of the Earth on a given moment on that date, and venture there, and thereafter revisit it? Of course. But in reality, when we get there, it's not there. Why not? We arrived at the planet's correct spatial coordinates--but not its right TEMPORAL coordinates! To do so, we need to GO BACK IN TIME to that desired moment. That proves the moment we desire to relive resides in the PAST. In conclusion, what we must do from this time forward is no longer philosophize that the flow of time is an illusion, but search with devices like the LHC at CERN for a particle whose function constitutes the physical basis for time.
Clearly, you do not understand the B-Theory.
So, where was the new theory of time? Was part of the talk cut out?
any way to see the full discussion?
Interesting that Smolin called his argument for Type 2 Naturalism a scientific one, but justified it on the emotional grounds that it would change our attitudes to everyday and long term events, and give us a morale boost.
As for the economic impacts, I don't see the relevance. It's been clear for some time that activity in the market can change the way the market behaves, and that a major mistake economists made was in treating people as rational actors. In that sense, economics got there first...
What do you have new to share Mr. Lee Smolin?
Time is a human construct which has been determined by the our unique position in the universe. Day/Night, phases of the moon, the seasons, tides, growth, etc. Outside of our world Time does Not Exist. Only Change. So Time is Change!
Truth is timeless.
Objects in space at their smallest component(photons) have color, what is the color of time if it does exist in space?
Absolutely -- Is A Mirage
Time is not 'real' may mean/imply it is complex, as Einstein realized.
Perhaps its complex nature gives it a fractal nature.
Nice time piece.
Nature has no laws. We humans are just good at recognizing patterns.
Will someone with a Ph.D. tell me (here) if this is science or philosophy? If the former, how do we test it, repeatedly?
There's a paradox in Lee Smolin's thinking: if the laws are subject to change and there's no law that is timeless then this law is subject to change too. In other words the law that laws are not timeless should not be timeless too. And that means that the law that laws are not timeless may be timeless which is contradiction.
That is just a fallacy of equivocation with the term law.
Oners82 Bankowa Okupacja It seems to me that Lee is proposing a sort of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for physics. Here's a wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
Jae Kwon Godel's Incompleteness Theorems (plural) have no relevance to physics. Don't confuse the problem of induction with the limitations of deductive systems.
Oners82 I'm using deductive reasoning to claim that inductive reasoning in our universe is either incomplete or inconsistent. If we want to believe that our system of physics is consistent, then well, our laws must be incomplete. Even if we observe a new phenomena of our universe, there will always be potentially more unexpected phenomena.
Are the laws (axioms) of our universe such that it can describe the natural numbers? If yes, is it consistent? If yes, then the laws are incomplete.
Jae Kwon
"If we want to believe that our system of physics is consistent, then well, our laws must be incomplete."
That does not follow at all. They could be consistent and complete, there is nothing to prohibit that. You are attempting to apply deductive restraint to empirical observation when it simply doesn't apply.
"Are the laws (axioms) of our universe such that it can describe the natural numbers?"
First off that is a false analogy, laws are not equivalent to axioms. And second I really don't even understand the question, you have it entirely backwards. Laws don't describe numbers, numbers describe the laws.
I think your implication is that numbers are directly derived from nature, and since math is incomplete, so is physics. The problem is that your assumption is completely false, math is not derived from nature and this is demonstrable.
1+1=2 is an abstract concept we use to categorize our experiences.
oh can someone tell me what happens to an apple when you eat it?
better to read his books..great writer, interesting thinker
He mentioned Leibniz and Newton, but he could/should have mentioned Kant. Time and space are a priori categories of the mind: They are "in here," not "out there." Kant writes, e.g, "Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally" (Ak 2: 403).
Changing time as in cause and effect and timelessness as in mathematics are opposites united to complete reality.
Thoughts evolve .
It isn't vague...he's talking about a meta-framework with which to conceptualize and test physical theory. 'Time Reborn' is a nontechnical popular science book meant to engage the public at large and any academics who may be interested in Smolin's work. He has stated that a more technical treatment of the subject matter is forthcoming in a book set to be released next year. Check out his 'The Trouble with Physics' before reading his latest...
How about Stochastic Processes for mathematical objects & time.
Time less truth does exist and is absolute , it is rather singular.
the people at the table seem to hate him? I like him and know his work is crazy..
I didn't get ANYTHING
I've got gainz, brain gainz bruh, u meerin?
Well, it's not just when we listen to someone that we can't predict what we'll get out of the conversation, but also when we think to ourselves too. The minute we start thinking, we no longer know for sure where our intellectual journey will take us.
When we also add intuition on top of intellect (and we are in fact listening to the interface between the two here), then the possible outcomes of the discourse multiply exponentially!
But please do keep listening and do keep thinking, because what I think makes life such a kick IS the unpredictability of outcomes.
Feast on that "box of chocolates" Forrest Gump describes as Life! You got a bad one here, but keep tasting new ones 'cuz Life's "Box of Chocolates" is infinite. The one chocolate that you like will take tasting some bad ones before.
Look up timecube on TH-cam, ule thank me.
Can anyone who's read the book tell me if this just completely subverts his previous claims that time (and space) are emergent properties of a fundamental theory that takes neither as dependents?
I'm not sure what he means by real. Has he just done a complete 180? Or is this still consistent with loop theory and junk?
Muito Relevante
I think some here don't understand the value in this new way to think about time. We haven't made very many leaps in physics. Maybe the problem is that we're looking at it from the wrong angle. You don't have to play around with the thought experiment as if it were true. I recommend exploring the idea like you were exploring a new philosophy.
Hard fact, we have no idea what time is, all we know is that we are subject to it.
By "time" you mean the flow of time? Because that would be true, that's kinda the whole point with the new models and ideas for experimentation.
can one say that time is entropy?
I would answer yes because I certainly say that on a relatively regular basis. But that doesn't explain either the flow of time or the "illusion" that time has flow, which is why it needs to be clear what we're talking about when we use the word since that's what most people who deny "the reality of time" are really referring to
the problem is there is no evidence of time in physics and laws of nature like electromagnetics, gravity, but obviously there is plenty of it in nature.
Time seems to be the movement through space.
8:35-and time is the record of the movement of matter through space.(?)
Bayes theorem would be a quite satisfactory point to point out that there are some mathematics at least [and therefore mathematics itself] has the tools to depict time. Apart from this, this guy seems to be on the right track...
I know for sure what was just before the big bang: "..and now Please welcome.. THE BIG BANG!!!"
It triggers me when people use that Einstein quote "past, present and future are a persistent illusion." to support the bizarre claim that time itself is an illusion and that Einstein said so.
The only thing meant by that is with respect to the remarkably small differential in speeds we experience, there by placing all of us within the same frame of reference by common measures / perceptions with respect to past, present and future.
He WAS NOT saying that past, present and future are actually illusions themselves, but that the idea them being invariant is an "illusion", and add nothing physically in the "playing out" of causation.
Only sentiment beings have concern of compared measures, physics itself not so much :/
Note also this quote of his is from a letter of condolence he wrote regarding the passing of someone.
It seems that there is no way in which anyone could prove or even beggin to explain how time could be real (if you have some links except this video above i am interested), same with free will. It is bizarre, but it is what it is.. The burden of proof is on believers, always.. even though it is pointless to talk about time and free will not existing, obviously, same with the illusion of self.
me too, when actually time is the realest thing we experience, more real than space.
1GTX1 , our time is unique to Earth. only matters, in its structured frailty, to be as it is here (can't touch it, change it, reverse it, it just is).
Some links that explain how time is real?? smh.....imo the proof is around Maxwell, Lorentz, Einstein & Minkowski all had significant contributions to "hammering out" the concept of time.
Just great.. They are talking about physics and keep missuse time, entropy.
for the correct, yes I said correct, scientific & philosophical understanding of time (which has a precisely reciprocal relationship to space - that is, time is 3 dimensional) please see any number of works by Dewey Larson P.hd. His "Structure of the Physical Universe" is a classic volume.
Maybe time is simply a sequence of system interactions. The systems may be somewhat predictable, but the interactions are not.
What a teaser, wheres the rest?!!!!
O=Outcome
E= Experience
R= Response
Over the course of this cognitive equation that has no begging or end and can be self repeating in the fractal nature of reality.
[O=E+R]=Belief
The naturalistic concept is very powerful. Studying nature is to know God.
+Gary Vardon He said that nothing exists outside of the natural world, and he also says there isn't even the realm of the soul. He denigrates the existence of God, which I find untenable.
Time is a compact dimension. There are not some possible closed timeline loops. Time is a closed timeline loop. We move from past onto the cusp of the future only to constantly have the carpet pulled out from beneath our feet and here we are in the present again. Time is a eternal 5.34 x 10^-44 seconds long.
Surely it would be the time required for light to travel the planck length?
Hmmm...this is not really any sort of "A New Theory of time" but, is just some meandering thoughts about what may or may not be some sort of generalizations of events as they occur as the flow of time progresses.
I watched the paint dry on my wall. It was thrilling compared to the above video.
thrilling compared to reading your comment
If time is
Removed, how can physics calculations work?
That left hand goes.
Its time for the rebirth of common sense.
francesco tammaro so then what is "common sense"?
common sense is a relative term that uses past occurrences that could be predicted for the current situation.
francesco tammaro how can something be common sense and relative? wouldn't relativity denote a conditional predication in experience? The objectivity that a term like "common sense" attempts to insinuate belighs your inference friend.
Alpha Omega My opinion Relativity does not use good sense and sound judgment . The spinning of the Earth is not relative to the motion of the Sun.
Obe of Einstein's quote, 'I never used rational thinking for any of my discoveries' clearly stares no common sense is being applied. Now we are stuck with Imagination because of the lack of common sense being applied.
can one unit of plank time be "sliced"?
His argument seems to be "I don't like the implications of physics", scientists should go away and remake reality till I'm happy with it. To paraphrase a great physicist "the universe doesn't require that you like it"
that's because you haven't listened to him. he has very precise arguments.
A lot of books I have read.of past times and the people dead.but not a book was given to me that read the future line by line.
many concepts changed only lately like time concept, self-concept...
you can check, no one talked about this before 1996 actually even before 2007,
this is provable of course.
many old men became smart suddenlly!
I lol'ed at this. There is no hope for modern physics. :(
The most intelligent statement made on and in this video.
Such blatant garbage, makes me sick to think they get away with this bullshit.
@@undernetjack Way to keep an open mind! lol You must be a dirty liberal.
@@tonyjackson4099 I see how you may be confused, my comment in this thread was after a rather lengthy diatribe I posted in the main comments section, so this comment here is out of context. If you care to read that other one , you will see that your conclusion is wrong, but, based on the one liner I posted here, I see your point. No, I am not affiliated with any political leaning. Truth in science, common sense, yes, paid research leading to political propaganda, not so much. Climate science is more like a religious dogma than science these days. If you do not point to man as being the only cause for climate change, then you cannot get published nor funded, so it is hard to blame them for trying to make a living, however they must be held accountable, as they harm the public trust, just like bad cops and crooked politicians. If you want a more complete answer about why and how climate science went so wrong, try the Suspicious Observers channel. They go to great lengths to hold scientists accountable for publishing truth over fiction. Yes, I get the mainstream agenda, pollution=Bad. However, we are not even a close second to the real driver of natural events on this world. The sun has a trillion times more to do with it, and climate science refuses to include any of its influence in their models. It's like doing research on oceanic conditions and ignoring the salt content.... The real reason they don't look at the sun is a genuine conspiracy theory proven as true crime. Very sad, and very nefarious. For example, what did the astronauts go to the Moon to look for? Geologic evidence of the Sun misbehaving. They found more than they bargained for. Glass rocks and spherules with fission tracks, transuranic elements, etc., all leading to the conclusion that we are toast. Do you think they want Anyone looking at the Sun? No, because then we would panic, and that would hamper their plans. Building deep underground , interconnected shelters and stockpiling them, and so on. They do not want to lose control if the truth gets out. Every 10-12,000 years, the Sun goes boom and we get a reset that makes what they are calling " the great reset" look like a pimple in the whole of a human's life cycle. You can stick your head in the sand, write me off as a nutcase, ignore me, or go looking to verify what I have said. I warn you though, the truth is far worse than the little I have hinted at here, and you may just want to take the blue pill on this one, Neo... good luck fellow human.