One thought on “380. Bryce Zabel

  • December 4, 2019 at 11:30 am

    I think Bryce is always a fun and energetic guest and like to hear his stories.

    When Bryce raised the issue of why people don’t question candidates about UFOs, he oddly did not understand that these events are tightly staged. The candidates do not want questions that would throw them off or embarrass them. Only in special cases where someone like Hillary was goaded by Podesta does this discussion get going (or a journalist ambushing a candidate).

    Bryce, and maybe even Martin, seem to think it would be logical for the government to “disclose UFOs”. This is odd to me. How can we trust the government after all the secrets and misinformation dirty tricks? It really does not matter what they say since they will say is what is best for their own purposes.

    It seems to me that if this UFO thing is really negative (hostile or malevolent ET), they would not at all “disclose” it. What would be the purpose? President says: “Heh, everyone! ET is here and is doing what they want with us and there is nothing we can do because they are so advanced! Have a nice day!” This really not going to be productive.

    So, I would not be misled to think these recent Navy videos mean much. There would be no way that the military is going to say that they are at the mercy of something they cannot identify. What would be the motive? There are alternate interpretations (which we still can’t confirm) as to why they are doing this.

    Finally, on climate change, Martin and Bryce seem to be concerned that some people are “denying” it (I refer to human generate climate change, not natural climate change). It is a hard topic and extremely complicated. I would rather have Science operate fairly to sort it out. But it seems that too much emotion and influence of vested interests (not the science, but rather money or other things) has been placed into this topic. If you review the history of Science, it is not a pretty sight and not exactly “fair”. Lots of in fighting, good old boy networks, paradigms, personalities and politics, the entire panoply of human behavior, is put behind issues in Science. It is not just noble, honest, good natured guys in white lab coats seeking the Truth.

    Lay people can only grasp easy summary bullets on this climate topic that fit into their worldview. There are so many bits of data that it is easy to get lost in the weeds. Nuances in just one data point can take a lot of time to understand and unravel. I have seen convincing arguments on BOTH sides. This is disturbing. However, before we mess up our entire economic system, and possibly harm lives in either direction, there needs to be more scientific work. This is going to take time.

    We need to avoid panic. Panic results in bad decisions and unanticipated consequences. One example I think is useful is the DDT issue. The book “Silent Spring” caused an environmental panic and alarm that started a cascade of activism to ban DDT, especially in third world countries. But the result as assessed by the National Academy of Sciences was more malaria carrying mosquitos and the loss of 500 million lives in those countries. Pretty steep price.

    I would believe the anti-human caused climate change people more if they advocated more nuclear plants/power. But they don’t.

    Bryce seems to think the fires in California are the result of “climate change”. Natural cycles in climate can cause dry periods. Sadly, this is only part of the problem. The overwhelming influence of environmentalists on CA legislators to prevent trimming out brush and trees from nearby power lines is the main problem area.

    Hopefully we can get people to see both sides otherwise we will remain polarized.

Comments are closed.